WILLIAM ROBERT WEBSTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed October 25, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00242-CR
No. 05-10-00243-CR
 
............................
WILLIAM ROBERT WEBSTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-12938-NR, F08-40474-NR
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
        William Robert Webster appeals the revocation of his community supervision in each case. In four issues, appellant contends the sentences are grossly disproportionate to the offenses and the written judgments should be modified to show his plea to the enhancement allegations and to the allegations in the motions to revoke. We modify and 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 cases is well settled.
 
Background
 
        Appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to injury to an elderly person and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(3), 46.04(a)(1) (West Supp. 2010). Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, the trial court assessed a ten-year prison term in each case, a $1000 fine in the firearm case, and placed appellant on six years' community supervision in both cases. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision in each case, alleging several violations. At a hearing on the motions, appellant pleaded true to one allegation and not true to the remaining allegations. The trial court found all of the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment in each case.
Disproportionate Sentences
 
        In his first and second issues, appellant contends the sentences violate his constitutional rights under the United States and Texas Constitutions because they are grossly disproportionate to the offenses and inappropriate to the offender. See U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. Art. I, § 13. Appellant asserts that due to his mental health issues, he should have received drug treatment for his longstanding cocaine addiction rather than lengthy prison sentences. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support appellant's complaints.
        Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his 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, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentences, and he did not file a motion for new trial in either case. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review.
        In addition, we note that the trial court imposed punishment in these cases within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 22.04(f), 46.04(e) (West Supp. 2010). As a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither excessive nor unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd).
        We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the ten-year sentences. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We resolve appellant's first two issues against him.
Modify Judgments
 
        In his third issue, appellant contends the written judgments should be modified to show he entered a plea of true to one enhancement paragraph included in the indictment in cause no. 05-10- 00242-CR, and to show he pleaded not true to one of the allegations in the motion to revoke in cause no. 05-10-00243-CR. The State responds that appellant is entitled to have the judgments modified in the manner he has requested.
        In cause no. 05-10-00242-CR, the record shows appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph that was included in the indictment. The trial court's written judgment does not indicate appellant's plea to the enhancement paragraph. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. In cause no. 05-10- 00243-CR, the record shows the motion to revoke alleged appellant violated condition (b) by admitting to an officer that he had used cocaine, and condition (d) by failing to report on several enumerated dates. Appellant pleaded true to violating condition (b) and not true to violating condition (d). The trial court's written judgment recites appellant pleaded true to the motion to revoke. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant's third issue.
        We modify the judgment in cause no. 05-10-00242-CR to show appellant pleaded true to the “1st enhancement paragraph.” See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). We also modify the judgment in cause no. 05-10-00243-CR to show appellant pleaded true to condition (b) and not true to condition (d) in the motion to revoke. See id.
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100242F.U05