COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
| WAYLAND CHARLES LEWIS,
Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
§
§ § § § |
No. 08-06-00161-CR Appeal from the 203rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F-0555247-NP) |
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine in an amount more than one gram, but less than four grams, enhanced by the allegation of two prior felony convictions. Appellant pled guilty, and the court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. We affirm.
I. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
At the guilty plea hearing, Appellant pled guilty to the above-mentioned offense and to two other indictments, one of which alleged that he possessed cocaine in an amount of less than one gram, and one which alleged that he possessed cocaine in an amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams. Each of the three indictments contained two enhancement paragraphs. In an open plea, Appellant pled guilty to each charge and true to the enhancement paragraphs. The court found Appellant guilty of each offense and found the allegations in the enhancement paragraphs to be true. The court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years' imprisonment in the instant offense, and to twenty-five years' imprisonment for the other offense of possession of one gram or more, but less than four grams. The court assessed ten years' imprisonment for the offense of possessing less than one gram of cocaine. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. After pronouncing the sentences, the court inquired whether there was any legal reason why Appellant should not be sentenced, and defense counsel replied that there was no such reason.
II. DISCUSSIONIn his first and second issues, Appellant argues that the trial court imposed a grossly disproportionate and inappropriate sentence in violation of both the United States and Texas Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. The State responds that Appellant did not preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, that the sentence does not violate either the United States or Texas Constitutions.
Appellant did not complain about the sentence, either at the time it was imposed or in his motion 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.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and/or unusual punishments, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Because Appellant has not preserved his complaints, we resolve his first and second issues against him.
III. CONCLUSIONWe affirm the judgment of the trial court.
KENNETH R. CARR, Justice
June 14, 2007
Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)