ROBIN LEE RITCHIE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 338th District Court of Harris County

NUMBER 13-03-612-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ROBIN LEE RITCHIE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 338th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Without the benefit of a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. // Following a pre-sentence investigation ( PSI ) hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for forty-five years.

The record reflects that, after the trial court admonished appellant about the possible consequences of a guilty plea, including the range of punishment, // appellant entered a guilty plea. The pre-sentence investigation report revealed that appellant had previously been convicted of the following offenses:

1. Robbery - Bodily Injury convicted 12/04/92 (16 years in TDCJ)

2. Assault - Bodily Injury convicted 05/07/92 (240 days in Harris Co. Jail)

3. Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle convicted 10/07/91 (10 months in Harris Co. Jail)

4. Aggravated Assault - Deadly Weapon convicted 8/02/91 (180 days in Harris Co. Jail)

In a single issue, appellant contends that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it punishes him for being in the grip of a long-term addiction to crack cocaine, without providing an atmosphere for treatment of this medical condition.

As a preliminary matter, the State asserts that because appellant did not object to the sentence on any grounds and filed no motion for new trial he is therefore precluded from raising this complaint on appeal. We agree.

As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, there must be a timely objection which specifically states the legal basis for that objection. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The record establishes that appellant failed to object to the imposition of punishment. Because appellant is raising this issue for the first time on appeal, we conclude that any error is waived. Id. at 120; see Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Moreover, even had appellant s points been preserved, the sentence imposed was within the statutorily permissible range. See Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (en banc); Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). The general rule is that a sentence within the statutory range will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (en banc).

Accordingly, we overrule appellant s sole issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 26th day of May, 2005.