AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 16, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00508-CR
No. 05-13-00509-CR
No. 05-13-00510-CR
MICHELLE RENAE ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-53993-Q, F11-63173-Q, F13-51244-Q
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Michelle Renae Anderson appeals from her convictions for felony prostitution. In four
issues, appellant contends the ten-year sentences violate the United States and Texas
Constitutions, and the judgments placing her on community supervision should be modified. We
affirm the trial court’s judgments.
BACKGROUND
In cause nos. 05-13-00508-CR and 05-13-00509-CR, appellant waived a jury, pleaded
guilty to prostitution, having three or more prior prostitution convictions, and pleaded true to two
enhancement paragraphs alleging prior non-state jail felony convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 43.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West Supp. 2013). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’
imprisonment, probated for five years, in each case. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s
community supervision, alleging she violated several conditions of community supervision.
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found all of
the allegations true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten
years’ imprisonment in each case.
In cause no. 05-13-00510-CR, appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to prostitution,
having three or more prior prostitution convictions, and pleaded true to two enhancement
paragraphs alleging prior non-state jail felony convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 43.02(a)(1), (c)(2). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at ten
years’ imprisonment.
DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCES
In her first two issues, appellant contends the ten-year sentences are grossly
disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate to the offender, in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Texas
Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, XIV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. Appellant asserts
that based on the evidence she presented at trial about the abuse she suffered in childhood and
her drug addiction, she should have received further drug treatment and not severe sentences.
The State responds that appellant failed to preserve her complaints for appellate review and,
alternatively, the sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in
motions for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723
-2-
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for appellate
review.
Moreover, 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); see also Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App.
1984). Prostitution with three or more prior convictions for prostitution is a state jail felony.
With the two enhancement paragraphs, the punishment range is elevated to that of a second-
degree felony, punishable by imprisonment for two to twenty years and an optional fine not to
exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 12.425(b), 43.02(c)(2) (West 2011 &
West Sup. 2013). Appellant’s ten-year sentences are within the statutory punishment range. We
resolve appellant’s first two issues against her.
JUDGMENTS PLACING APPELLANT ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
In her third and fourth issues, appellant asks us to modify the judgments placing her on
community supervision to reflect she entered open guilty pleas in cause nos. 05-13-00508-CR
and 05-13-00509-CR. The State responds that appellant is entitled to have the judgments
modified as she requests.
Once the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and imposed the
sentences, the original judgment suspending the sentence and placing her on community
supervision was no longer in effect. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004); McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d). A trial court’s
judgment revoking community supervision expressly sets aside the underlying order placing
appellant on community supervision. See McCoy, 81 S.W.3d at 919. Because the orders placing
-3-
appellant on community supervision are no longer in effect, we resolve appellant’s third and
fourth issues against her.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
130508F.U05
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHELLE RENAE ANDERSON, Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F11-53993-Q).
No. 05-13-00508-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
Justices Francis and Lewis participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 16, 2013.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
-5-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHELLE RENAE ANDERSON, Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F11-63173-Q).
No. 05-13-00509-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
Justices Francis and Lewis participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 16, 2013.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
-6-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHELLE RENAE ANDERSON, Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F13-51244-Q).
No. 05-13-00510-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
Justices Francis and Lewis participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 16, 2013.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
-7-