CARLOS ALEJANDRO VILLEGAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 27, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00294-CR
............................
CARLOS ALEJANDRO VILLEGAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F06-22654-SP
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang-Miers, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
        Carlos Alejandro Villegas waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of more than 400 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (f) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisoment and made an affirmative deadly weapon finding, a firearm. In two issues, appellant contends the sentence violates the United States and Texas Constitutions. We affirm.
        Appellant argues the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions, and is grossly disproportionate to the offense. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant argues that because he had no prior criminal history and did not possess the cocaine, he should have received probation. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentence does not violate the United States or Texas Constitution.
        Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a motion 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 sentence is cruel or unusual, and it is within the statutory punishment range for the offense. 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 twenty-year sentence is not unreasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing it. We resolve appellant's issues against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070294f.u05