Opinion
No. 05-02-00775-CR
Opinion issued June 3, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-29841-T. AFFIRMED
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and MOSELEY.
OPINION
In this case, Della Reeves appeals her conviction for possession of amphetamine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. After appellant waived a jury trial and entered a guilty plea without the benefit of a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced her to four years' confinement. Appellant now contends the evidence against her is insufficient to support the conviction and the sentence assessed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In her first issue, appellant argues that no evidence was offered by the State or admitted by the trial court to support her guilty plea. Thus, appellant argues, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. When a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty, we do not apply the Jackson "rationality" test in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. See Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). Rather, we affirm the trial court's judgment if the evidence introduced embraces every essential element of the offense charged and is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). When a defendant pleads guilty, the State must introduce sufficient evidence into the record to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty, and such evidence becomes the basis for the trial court's judgment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2003). In appellant's case, she admitted at the time of her plea that she had committed the offense as it was alleged in the indictment and was pleading guilty because she was guilty of the offense. This admission constitutes a judicial confession. See Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Accordingly, we resolve appellant's first issue against her. In her second issue, appellant argues the four-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant argues the trial judge abused his discretion when he ordered her to serve a prison term, while she was pregnant with her fourth child, as a means of preventing her from using prescribed medications. Appellant did not complain about her sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a motion for new trial. Even constitutional complaints may be waived by the failure to raise a timely objection in the trial court. See Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 889 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). We conclude appellant has not preserved her complaint for review. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1. Accordingly, we resolve appellant's second issue against her. We affirm the trial court's judgment.