Affirmed as Modified a nd Opinion Filed March 5, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-13-01346-CR No. 05-13-01347-CR SANTOS ADRIAN ARMIJO, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-54598-J, F13-54294-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion by Justice Francis Santos Adrian Armijo waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court as sessed punishment at twenty years in prison and a $5,000 fine in each case. The trial court’s judg ments also include orde rs that appellant pay $244 in court costs. In three issues, appellant c ontends the trial court a bused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment a nd insufficient evidence exists to support the orders that he pay $244 in court costs. A cross-issue by the State seeks modification of one judgment to include the fine amount. We modify the judgment in cause no. 05-13-01346-CR and affi rm as modified, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-13-01347-CR.‐ 2 ‐ In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discre tion by sentencing him to imprisonment in each case because such punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. Appellant asserts the se ntences are merely puni tive and do not addres s his longstanding drug addiction issues. The State res ponds that appellant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court prop erly exercised its discretion in assessing the

sentences. Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in a motion for new trial. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State , 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). Thus, appell ant has not preserved his issue for review. Moreover, as a general rule, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an 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 each case, appellant was indicted for the firstdegree felony offense of aggrav ated robbery. The punishment range is imprisonment for five to ninety-nine years or life and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b). The twenty-year sentences imposed in these cases are on the low end of the statutory range for the offense. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sent encing appellant to imprisonment. See Jackson v. State , 680 S.W.2d 809–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (sentence within proper range of punishment will not be dist urbed on appeal). We resolve appellant’s first issue against him. In his second and third issues, appellant cont ends the evidence is insufficient to support the order in each case that he pay $244 in court costs because the clerk’s records do not contain proper written bills of costs. Th e record before us contains th e bills of costs. Appellant’s‐ 3 ‐ complaints have been addressed and rejected. See Johnson v. State , No. PD-0193-13, 2014 WL 714736, at *4–8 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014); Coronel v. State , 416 S.W.3d 550, 555–56 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref’d). We ove rrule appellant’s second and third issues. In a cross-issue, the State asks us to modify the judgment in cause no. 05-13-01346-CR to include the $5,000 fine that was orally pro nounced by the trial cour t when appellant was sentenced. The record shows the trial court assessed a $5,000 in e ach case when it imposed the twenty-year prison sentences. The judgment, howev er, omits the fine. When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the j udgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See Coffey
v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1998). We sustain the State’s cross-point. In cause no. 05-13-01346-CR, we modify the trial court’s judg ment to incl ude the $5,000 fine orally pronounced. As modi fied, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. In cause no. 05-13- 01347-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 131346F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE‐ 4 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

SANTOS ADRIAN ARMIJO, Appellant
No. 05-13-01346-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-54598-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Lang participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$5,000.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered March 5, 2015

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE‐ 5 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

SANTOS ADRIAN ARMIJO, Appellant
No. 05-13-01347-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-54294-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Lang participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered March 5, 2014

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE