Opinion
No. 05-10-00037-CR
Opinion Filed January 24, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-58640-J.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anglia Hope Rodgers waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of assault involving family violence and with one prior conviction for assault-family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2010); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.004(1) (West 2008). Appellant also pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at three years' imprisonment. In two issues, appellant contends the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and the trial court made no finding of true to the enhancement paragraph. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. In two issues, appellant contends the three-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the code of criminal procedure, and that the trial court failed to make a finding of true to the enhancement paragraph. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 1.09 (West 2005). The State responds that appellant has not preserved her complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentence. Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in her motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentence, and her motion for new trial complained that the "verdict" was "contrary to the law and the evidence." Thus, appellant has not preserved her issues for our review. Even if appellant had preserved error, however, her arguments still fail because the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.33, 12.42(a)(3), 22.01(b)(2) (West Supp. 2010); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Moreover, appellant pleaded true to committing the offense as alleged in the indictment. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the three-year sentence. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We resolve appellant's two issues against her. We affirm the trial court's judgment.