MARCUS KEITH BROWNLEE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 5th District Court of Appeals » 2009 » MARCUS KEITH BROWNLEE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-09-00314-CR,

Case Date: 11/30/2009

Plaintiff: MARCUS KEITH BROWNLEE, Appellant

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Preview:MARCUS KEITH BROWNLEE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 25, 2009

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-09-00314-CR No. 05-09-00315-CR ............................ MARCUS KEITH BROWNLEE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ............................................................. On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-52530-NI, F07-52531-NI ............................................................. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Richter, and Francis Opinion By Justice Richter Marcus Keith Brownlee waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. After hearing testimony from a treating psychiatrist, a detective, appellant's stepfather, and appellant, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-eight years' imprisonment. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to prison, in each case, rather than placing him on probation. Appellant asserts the sentences were not necessary to prevent the recurrence of any criminal behavior. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not support his claims. Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in his 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.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). After sentencing, appellant did not object to the sentences, and his motions for new trial complained that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. Even if appellant had preserved error, however, his arguments still fail. As a general rule, punishment that is
file:///C|/TX/Folder%2001/05-09-00315-cr-5.html[7/20/2013 1:31:11 AM]

assessed within the statutory range for the 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). In these cases, the trial court imposed punishment within the statutory range for the offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

Download 05-09-00315-cr-5.pdf