DARRIUS ALONZO HARRIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed January 11, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-00437-CR
No. 05-09-00438-CR
No. 05-09-00439-CR
No. 05-09-00440-CR
No. 05-09-00441-CR
............................
 
DARRIUS ALONZO HARRIS, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-21881-SN, F08-40249-SN, F08-51534-WN,
F08-71373-SN, F08-71432-SN
.............................................................
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
Before Justices Morris, O'Neill, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Fillmore
 
 
        Darrius Alonzo Harris waived a jury and pleaded guilty to five aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment in each case. In a single issue, Harris contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The background of the case 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.
        Harris contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to fifteen-year prison terms because the sentences were not necessary to prevent a likely recurrence of his criminal behavior and do not meet rehabilitation objectives. Harris asserts that because he went astray during a short period of drug use and expressed remorse and a sincere desire for probation, the trial court should have granted probation. The State responds that Harris has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claim.
        Harris 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). After sentencing, Harris did not object to the sentences, nor did he file a motion for new trial in any of the cases. Thus, he has not preserved this issue for our review.
        Even if Harris 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 offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(a).
        We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the fifteen-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 Harris's sole issue on appeal.         We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ROBERT M. FILLMORE
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
090437F.U05