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 BA RBER, 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 fraudul ent use or possession of identifying information. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 32.51(b) (West Supp. 2013). The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ im prisonment 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 th e 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 discreti on 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 fo r appellate review and, alternatively, the record does not show the sent ence violates the objectiv es of the penal code. Appellant did not complain abou t the sentence either at the time it was 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 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, a ppellant was indicted for the second-degree felony offense of fraudulent use or possession of id entifying information of ten or more items but less than fifty. The punishment range is impris onment for two to twenty years and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 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 thir teen felony convictions. 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 punishment range no t disturbed on appeal). We ove rrule 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 beca use 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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