JENNIFER LYCHELLE BULLOCK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 16, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00187-CR
No. 05-10-00191-CR
No. 05-10-00188-CR
No. 05-10-00192-CR
No. 05-10-00189-CR
No. 05-10-00193-CR
No. 05-10-00190-CR
............................
JENNIFER LYCHELLE BULLOCK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-72092-ISI, F09-72091-ISI, F09-72090-ISI, F09-72201-RSI
F09-72298-QSI, F09-72291-QSI, F09-24347-RI
.............................................................
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Moseley
 
 
        Jennifer Lychelle Bullock appeals her convictions for false statement to obtain property, fraudulent use or possession of identifying information, and tampering with a government record. In seven issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing her to prison in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases 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 three offenses of making a false statement to obtain property valued at $1500 or more but less than $20,000, three fraudulent use or possession of identifying information offenses, and one tampering with a government record offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32.32(b), 32.51(b)(1), 37.10(a)(2) (West Supp. 2010). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility for each false statement and fraudulent use of identifying information conviction and nineteen years' imprisonment for the tampering with a government record conviction.
        Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing her to imprisonment in each case because there is nothing in the record to show she is beyond redemption or that she could not be rehabilitated. Appellant asserts she used information from her former employer to obtain four different cars so she could take her mother to chemotherapy sessions for cancer treatment. Appellant argues that because she had a music degree, plays piano and organ, and has an information processing certificate, she and society would be best served through probation and gainful employment. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve her complaints 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 her 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 sentences, and her motions for new trial complained that the “verdicts” were “contrary to the law and the evidence.” Thus, appellant has not preserved her issues for our review.         Even if appellant had preserved error, however, her argument still fails because the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 12.35, 32.32(c)(4), 32.51(c)(1), 37.10(d)(3) (West 2003 & Supp. 2010); 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 the nineteen- and two-year 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 resolve appellant's seven issues against her.
        In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100187F.U05