Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 26, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01656-CR 

SHENEQUA LICOLE BARBER, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-59385-U 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Shenequa Licole Barber waived a jury and pleaded guilty to fraudulent use or possession 

of identifying information. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51(b) (West Supp. 2013). The trial 

court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. The trial court’s 

judgment also includes an order that appellant pay $244 in court costs. In a two issues, appellant 

contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing her to imprisonment and there is 

insufficient evidence in the record to support the order that she pay $244 in court costs. We 

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
‐2‐ 

In her first issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing her to 

imprisonment because such punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. Appellant 

asserts the sentence is merely punitive and does not address her longstanding drug addiction 

issues. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review and, 

alternatively, the record does not show the sentence violates the objectives of the penal code. 

Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a 

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.). Thus, appellant has not preserved her 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). Here, appellant was indicted for the second-degree 

felony offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of ten or more items but 

less than fifty. The punishment range is imprisonment for two to twenty years and an optional 

fine not to exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 32.51(c)(3). Although the 

trial court assessed the maximum punishment, the twenty-year sentence is within the statutory 

range for the offense given appellant’s criminal history that includes thirteen felony convictions. 

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to 

imprisonment. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (sentence 

within proper punishment range not disturbed on appeal). We overrule appellant’s first issue. 

In her second issue, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial 

court’s order that she pay $244 in court costs because the original clerk’s record does not contain 

a bill of costs. The record before us contains the bill of costs. Appellant’s complaints have been 
‐3‐ 

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, pet. 

ref’d). We overrule appellant’s second issue. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

121656F.U05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
‐4‐ 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

SHENEQUA LICOLE BARBER, 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01656-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-59385-U). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, 

Justices O’Neill and Brown participating. 

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

Judgment entered March 26, 2014 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE