EDWARD WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 19, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00483-CR
............................
EDWARD WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F03-25763-RK
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
        Edward Wayne Johnson waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of less than one gram of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years' community supervision, and assessed a $500 fine. The State later moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility. In three points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in assessing an unreasonable sentence and 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 the trial judge assessed an unreasonable sentence. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant argues that because he told the trial judge he believed a six-month sentence is appropriate, and because the violations were only generalized violations without any new offenses, the trial judge should have sentenced him to only six months in a state jail facility. 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 two-year sentence is not unreasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing it. We overrule appellant's points of error.
        The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DOUGLAS S. LANG
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070483f.u05