BOBBY LEE LINDLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed February 26, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-00058-CR
No. 05-09-00059-CR
 
............................
BOBBY LEE LINDLEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-01177-YP, F08-01178-YP
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Fillmore
        Bobby Lee Lindley appeals from two convictions. In a single point of error, Lindley contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment 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.
        Lindley waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to burglary of a building and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a), 31.07(a) (Vernon 2003). After finding Lindley guilty in each case, the trial court passed the case for a presentence investigation report. During the punishment hearing, Lindley pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true and assessed punishment at six years' imprisonment and a $1500 fine in each case.
        Lindley contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison because the sentences are not necessary to prevent a recurrence of his criminal behavior, and they do not take into consideration rehabilitation or Lindley's need for alcohol abuse treatment. The State responds that Lindley has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the prison sentences.
        Lindley did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in 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, record must show appellant made timely request, objection, or motion). Thus, Lindley has not preserved this issue for our review.
        Even if Lindley had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail. As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). In this case, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(a)(3), 30.02(c)(1), 31.07((b) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2009).
        We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the six-year sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as sentence is within proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We overrule Lindley's sole point of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ROBERT M. FILLMORE
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
090058F.U05