Opinion
No. 05-07-00916-CR
Opinion filed June 6, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F06-70772-JS.
Shelly O'Brien Yeatts, Assistant District Attorney, Frank Crowley Courts Bldg, Dallas, Texas. Michael Levine, Nawaz Levine, LLP, Dallas, Texas.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jimmy Lee Rodriguez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a knife. The trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years' imprisonment. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant argues that because the trial judge said he would not give appellant probation before the judge heard any punishment evidence, appellant's rights to due process and due course of law were violated. The State responds appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court did not violate appellant's rights to due process and due course of law. Appellant did not complain about the sentence on due process grounds, or any other grounds, either at the time it was imposed or in his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Even constitutional rights may be waived. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) ; Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). There is nothing in the record that shows the trial judge arbitrarily refused to consider the entire range of punishment. We resolve appellant's issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Dear Attorneys: Enclosed is a corrected page 2 for the above-mentioned case that was issued by the Court on May 29, 2008. Please note the following typographical error, which has been corrected:
Pg.2, We resolve appellant's issues against him.Please replace your page 2 with the newly corrected copy.
We note that in response to appellant's question, "I would really like to know if you would give me probation, please," the trial judge stated, "Okay. I'm not going to give you probation. I just don't — I don't see it, based on your history. Now, when you testify, you may be able to convince me, but I don't — I don't see it happening. Do you wish to proceed?"