Randy Kiara Ashdon Sparks waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses and one unauthorized use of a motor vehicle offense. The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each aggravated robbery and one year in state jail and a $2,500 fine for the UUMV.

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the penal code by sentencing him to prison in each case. Specifically, appellant asserts the sentences do not address his drug addiction, mental health issues, and lack of education, and are merely punitive. The State responds that appellant has not preserved this issue for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not show the sentences violate the objectives of the penal code.

Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his motions for new trial, which complained the “verdict” was “contrary to the law and evidence.” 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 a timely request, objection, or motion). Thus, appellant has not preserved his issue for our review.

Moreover, as a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an 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). The punishment range for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony offense, is five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32(a), 29.03(b) (West 2011). The punishment range for UUMV, a state jail felony offense, is confinement in state jail for 180 days to two years. See id. §§ 12.35(a), 31.07(b). In each case, appellant’s sentence was within the statutory range.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by assessing the sentences in these cases. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

110659F.U05

S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT