ELBERT EUGENE LONDON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed October 10, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01639-CR
No. 05-07-01642-CR
No. 05-07-01640-CR
No. 05-07-01643-CR
No. 05-07-01641-CR
............................
ELBERT EUGENE LONDON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-24662-QR, F07-24665-HR, F07-24683-HR,
F07-24707-HR, F07-40759-NR
 
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Wright, Lang-Miers, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Wright
        Elbert Eugene London waived a jury and pleaded guilty to five offenses of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a), 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003). In each case, the trial court assessed punishment at thirty years' imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to lengthy prison terms in violation of penal code objectives. We affirm.
        Appellant argues the thirty-year sentences violate the penal code objectives because lengthy sentences are not necessary to prevent a likely recurrence of his criminal behavior, will not rehabilitate him, and do not recognize differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual defendants. Appellant asserts that due to his remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and his lack of a prior criminal history, the sentences are outside the zone of reasonable disagreement and constitute an abuse of discretion. The State responds appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing punishment.
        Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his motions for new trial. Thus, appellant has not preserved his complaint for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Moreover, the sentences are within the statutory punishment range for the offenses. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd).
        We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing appellant's punishment. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          CAROLYN WRIGHT
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071639F.U05