Opinion
No. 05-05-01283-CR
Opinion issued July 19, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F05-00678-H. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and RICHTER.
OPINION
Kelvin Thurmon pleaded guilty to robbery and true to one enhancement paragraph. The trial judge sentenced appellant to ten years' imprisonment. In three issues, appellant contends the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and the trial judge erred in allowing the complainant to give opinion testimony regarding the appropriate punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first two issues, appellant argues the ten-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense in violation of the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences do not violate the United States or Texas Constitutions. Appellant did not complain about the sentence, either at the time it was imposed or in a 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.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Because appellant has not preserved his complaint, we resolve his first two issues against him. In his third issue, appellant argues that the wrongful admission of the complainant's testimony regarding what punishment he would like to see in this case constitutes fundamental error. Appellant did not object to the testimony. Therefore, he has not preserved his complaint for review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We resolve appellant's third issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.