Opinion
No. 04-01-00056-CR.
Delivered and Filed March 5, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
From the 183rd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court No. 840,615. AFFIRMED.
Before Justices PAUL W. GREEN, KAREN ANGELINI, and SANDEE BRYAN MARION.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Marcus Deshun Williams appeals his one year prison sentence for deadly conduct, claiming the sentence is so excessive that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States and Texas constitutions. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 1. Williams waived his complaint regarding the severity of punishment because the record does not show the issue was raised in the trial court either by objection or by motion for new trial. See Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496-97 (Tex.Crim. App. 1995); Cruz v. State, 838 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd); Linson v. State, No. 04-00-00632-CR, 2002 WL 1573424, at *3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio July 17, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication). 2. Williams' one year sentence fell within the range of punishment for the offense of deadly conduct. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.05(a), 12.21 (Vernon 1994). Therefore, even if Williams preserved the issue for review, his sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Texas constitution. See Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex.Crim. App. 1983); Puga v. State, 916 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 3. Although Williams presented several letters of recommendation to mitigate his sentence, considering the severity of the offense, holding a gun to the complainant's head, and Williams' history of prior offenses, Williams' sentence was not so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States Constitution. See Eiland v. State, 993 S.W.2d 215, 216-17 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Puga, 916 S.W.2d at 549-50. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.