OTIS LAQUINTON BETTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed April 30, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-01158-CR
No. 05-09-01159-CR
No. 05-09-01160-CR
No. 05-09-01161-CR
No. 05-09-01162-CR
 
............................
OTIS LAQUINTON BETTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-86742-T, F07-72325-T, F08-61199-T,
F09-50920-T, F09-50921-T
.............................................................
 
OPINION
 
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Moseley
 
 
        Otis LaQuinton Betts appeals his convictions in five cases. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
        Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a building (cause no. 05-09-01158- CR), aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (cause no. 05-09-01159-CR), attempting to take a weapon from peace officer (cause no. 05-09-01160-CR), and assault on a public servant (cause nos. 05-09-01161-CR and 05-09-01162-CR). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01, 22.02, 30.02, 38.14 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2009). After finding appellant guilty in each case, the trial court assessed the following punishment: two years' confinement in a state jail facility for the burglary and attempting to take a weapon from a peace officer convictions, ten years' imprisonment and a $2500 fine for the aggravated assault conviction, and ten years' imprisonment for each assault on a public servant conviction.
         In his sole point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison because he has drug and alcohol problems and needs treatment rather than incarceration. Appellant asserts he committed the offenses only because he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and he should have received probation, intensive drug and alcohol treatment, and be allowed to continue receiving chemotherapy treatments that were begun after a prior surgery for a spinal tumor. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support appellant's claims.
        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). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentence, and he did not file a motion for new trial in any of the cases. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.
        Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his argument still fails. 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 these cases, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 12.35, 22.01(b)(1), 22.02(b), 30.02(c)(1), 38.14(e)(2) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2009).
        We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the prison sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
        In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
091158F.U05