JERRIEL DEON TEAL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-08-00196-CR,

Case Date: 12/23/2008

Plaintiff: JERRIEL DEON TEAL, Appellant

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Preview:JERRIEL DEON TEAL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion issued December 23, 2008

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-08-00196-CR No. 05-08-00197-CR No. 05-08-00198-CR No. 05-08-00199-CR No. 05-08-00200-CR ............................ JERRIEL DEON TEAL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ............................................................. On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-38850-THK, F06-38866-YHK, F06-38867-YHK, F06-39144-YHK, F07-32437-JK ............................................................. OPINION Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Morris and Francis Opinion By Justice Francis Jerriel Deon Teal waived a jury and pleaded guilty to four aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses and one aggravated robbery of an elderly person offense. The trial court assessed punishment at eight years in prison in each case. In three points of error, appellant contends the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment and he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's judgments. In his first two points of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in assessing unreasonable sentences because they are grossly disproportionate to the offenses and constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Appellant asserts because he showed remorse for his actions and apologized to the complainants, and because he desired and needed rehabilitation, the trial court should have placed him on probation. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences were not grossly disproportionate so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 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 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Moreover, evidence shows the sentences are not cruel or unusual, and they are within the statutory punishment range for the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

Download 05-08-00197-cr-5.pdf