DELMOS WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 20, 2007
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00406-CR
No. 05-07-00407-CR
 
............................
DELMOS WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-48726-R, F07-48727-R
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Richter
        Delmos Williams waived a jury and pleaded guilty to delivery of less than one gram of cocaine and delivery of five pounds or less, but more than one-fourth ounce of marijuana. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a), (b), 481.120 (a), (b)(3) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a State jail facility in each case. In six points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in assessing unreasonable sentences and the sentences violate the United States and Texas Constitutions. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
        Appellant argues the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions, and the trial judge assessed an unreasonable sentence. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant argues that because he told the trial judge he was desperate due to the potential eviction of his family and because he asked for probation so he could get a job and provide for his family, the trial judge should have assessed lesser sentences. 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 Constitution.
        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.). 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. Moreover, there is no evidence the sentences are cruel or unusual, and they are within the statutory punishment range for the offenses. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32; Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd).
        We conclude the two-year sentences are not unreasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing them. We overrule appellant's points of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070406F.U05