Roger Olan Brannan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 66th District Court of Hill County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00029-CR ROGER OLAN BRANNAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 35,430 MEMORANDUM OPINION Roger Olan Brannan pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a building and pled guilty to two enhancements, which raised the level of offense from a state-jail felony to a second-degree felony. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003); TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.42(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). There was no plea bargain as to sentencing. The trial court, after hearing evidence and reviewing the pre-sentence investigation, sentenced Brannan to six (6) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Brannan, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Brannan contends that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing his sentence because, according to Brannan, the trial court appears to have disregarded mitigating evidence presented by Brannan. Brannan concedes that the range of punishment for this offense with the enhancement allegations is a sentence of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years and a fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.33 (Vernon 2003). A trial court has wide discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Generally, as long as a sentence is within the range of punishment and has a factual basis in the record, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Brannan does not point to any evidence in the record that shows that the trial court ignored any portion of the evidence, and we will not presume that the trial court did so. Brannan s sentence of six years falls within the statutory range of punishment and is well below the maximum sentence authorized by law. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing Appellant's sentence and overrule his sole point of error. Conclusion We find no abuse of discretion in the assessment of Brannan s sentence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Brannan v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 9, 2009 Do not publish [CR25] Brannan v. State Page 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
