Opinion
Nos. 05-11-00133-CR, 05-11-00136-CR, 05-11-00134-CR, 05-11-00137-CR, 05-11-00135-CR, 05-11-00138-CR
Opinion issued October 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-60031-W, F09-60948-W, F09-62021-W, F09-62066-W, F09-73112-W, F10-71035-W.
Before Justices MORRIS, O'NEILL, and FILLMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony Elias Romo waived a jury and pleaded guilty to six aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). After finding Romo guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at forty years' imprisonment in each case, with all sentences to run concurrently, and a single $10,000 fine. In two issues, Romo contends the sentences are unconstitutional. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases 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 47.4 because the law to be applied in the cases is well settled. Romo contends the sentences violate his constitutional rights under the United States and Texas Constitutions because they are grossly disproportionate to the offenses and inappropriate to the offender. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. Art. I, § 13. Romo asserts he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine at the time he committed the offenses, and he was therefore susceptible to being induced by his mother's boyfriend to commit the robberies. The State responds that Romo has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences are constitutional. Romo did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in motions 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 an appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). Thus, he has not preserved this issue for our review. In addition, we note that the trial court imposed punishment in these cases within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b). As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither excessive nor unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd); see also 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 Romo's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.