RANDALL REMON WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Bridges

In these cases, Randall Remon Williams waived a jury and pleaded guilty to an unauthorized possession of a firearm by a felon offense;  two theft of property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000 offenses;  and a burglary of a habitation offense.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02(a)(1), 31.03(a), 46.04(a) (West 2011).   Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment.   After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at thirty years' imprisonment for the firearm and burglary convictions, and ten years' imprisonment for each theft conviction.   In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment in each case.   We affirm the trial court's judgments.   The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore 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 contends the thirty- and ten-year prison sentences violate the objectives of the penal code and are not necessary to prevent a likely recurrence of his criminal behavior.   Appellant asserts that he committed the offenses only to “feed” his longstanding addiction to cocaine, and he contacted a drug treatment program while in jail and was accepted if he received probation.   Thus, he asserts, the trial court should have deferred adjudication of guilt and ordered drug treatment as a condition of community supervision.   The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not show the sentences violate the objectives of the penal code.

Appellant 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 appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion).   Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.

Moreover, as a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an 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).   The sentences imposed in these cases are within the ranges for the respective offenses, enhanced by two prior felony convictions.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(d), 30.02(c)(2), 31.03(e)(4)(A), 46.04(e) (West 2011).

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by assessing the thirty- and ten-year sentences.   See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).   We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE