Thompson, Timothy v. State ( 2005 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-00644-CR

_______________

TIMOTHY THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 956,044

____________________________________________________

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant, Timothy Thompson, entered a plea of guilty for the offense of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to twenty years= confinement.  In one issue, appellant contends that the punishment was cruel and unusual in violation of the federal and state constitutions.  Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion and affirm.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

A party must make a timely and specific objection, request, or motion at trial to preserve error for appellate review.  Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).  Appellant did not make any objections to the trial court concerning his sentence.  Further, appellant did not file a motion for new trial to set forth his claim of cruel and unusual punishment.  Consequently, appellant presents nothing for review.  See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref=d) (holding appellant forfeited any error with regard to his federal and state constitutional rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment when he failed to object or file a post-trial motion on these grounds).

Moreover, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery.  Aggravated robbery is a first-degree felony with a punishment range of five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 29.03(b) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 12.32(a) (Vernon 2003).  Appellant=s sentence of twenty years= imprisonment falls at the lower end of the statutory range.  Punishment within the statutory range is generally not considered disproportionate in violation of federal and state constitutional prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment.  See Witt v. State, 475 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). If, however, a punishment within the statutory range is found Agrossly disproportionate@ to the offense, courts must compare it to sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions.  Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 291B92 (1983); Baldridge v. State, 77 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref=d). Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the severity of the sentence was Agrossly disproportionate@ to the gravity of the offense.  Further, because the error was not properly preserved, there is no evidence for us to review concerning sentences for comparable offenses in this and other jurisdictions.

Appellant=s sole issue is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/        Charles W. Seymore

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Hudson, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).