RUBEN LARAY JEFFERY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed April 25, 2008.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00812-CR
............................
RUBEN LARAY JEFFERY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F06-28498-TK
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
        Ruben Laray Jeffery waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for five years. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging he violated the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment. In three points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in assessing an unreasonable sentence and the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
        Appellant argues the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant also contends the trial court assessed an unreasonable sentence. Appellant asserts that because of his substance abuse and behavioral issues, the trial court should have exercised restraint in sentencing and should have placed appellant in an alternative treatment program. The State responds that appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentence neither violates the United States or Texas Constitution nor is it unreasonable.
        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 the ten-year sentence is in the middle of the statutory punishment range for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33(a) (Vernon 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). We overrule appellant's three points of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070812f.u05