JAMES MONROE JACKSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Moseley

James Monroe Jackson appeals from his conviction for burglary of a habitation.   In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment.   We affirm the trial court's judgment.   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 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation.   Appellant also pleaded true to a prior burglary of a habitation conviction.   After finding appellant guilty and the prior conviction true, the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years' imprisonment.

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a twelve-year prison term because such punishment violates the objectives of the penal code.   Appellant asserts the prison sentence does not rehabilitate appellant from his drug use or treat his mental issues, which relate to abuse he suffered as a child.   The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claims.

Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his 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, record must show appellant made timely request, objection, or motion).   After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentence, and his motion for new trial complained that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.   Thus, he has not preserved this issue for our review.

Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail.   As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual.  Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd).   In this case, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 30.02(a), (c) (Vernon 2003 & Supp.2009).

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the twelve-year sentence.   See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (as long as sentence is within proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal).   We overrule appellant's sole point of error.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE