MO1NFIE13, and AFFIRM; Opinion issued September 19 2012.

in The

QLlnrt uf Apprals

Fift1! Oitrirt uf at tIaIla!.i

No. 05-11-01649-CR

ERIC BELL CLARK, Appellant

V.

THE Si ATE OF 1EXAS, Appellec

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. Fl 1—70569—K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Richter. and Lang

Opinion By Justice Richter

Eric Bell Clark waived ajury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,

a handgun. See TEx. PEN\L CoDE ANN. § 29.03(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed

punishment at twenty years imprisonment and a S 1,000 fine. In two points of error, appellant

contends the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to imprisonment and the judgment

should be modified to reflect the correct name of the presiding judge. We modify the trial court’s

judgment and affirm as moditied. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are

well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum

opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case

is well settled.
In hisfirst pointofentr. appellant contendsthe trial court abused its discretion by sentencing

hint to imprisonment because the punishment violates the objectives ofthe penal code. Appellant

asserts he was on drugs at the time he committed the offense and onlywanted money to feed his drug

addiction. Appellant argues that because the punishment fails to address his longstanding drug and

alcohol addiction, he should have received drugtreatmentratherthan a twenty-yearprison tenn. The

State responds that appellant tbiled to preserve thisissue for appellate review and, alternatively, the

record does not show the sentence violates the objective ofthe penal code.

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

motion 1kw new trial. See flx.It App. P.33.1 (aX 1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719,723 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (to preserve error, appellant must make a timely request, objection. or

motion). Thus, appellant has not preserved the issue for our 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

(‘rex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet refd). The punishment range for aggravated robbery with a deadly

weapon, a first-degree felony offense, is five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment See Thx.

PENAL CODE ANN. ft 12.32.29.03(b). Appellant’stwenty-year sentence is on the lower end ofthe

statutory range.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion byassessing the twenty-yearsentence.

See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809,814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We overrule appellant’s first

point of error.

In his second point of error, appellant contends the judgment should be modified to reflect

the correct name ofthe presidingjudge. The State agreesthejudgmentshould be modified to reflect

the name ofthe judge who actually presided over the proceedings.

—2—
The record shows the Honorable John Creuzot presided over the proceedings. Thejudgment,

hovcu tdLfltitIs thL I lonoi iblt. (11a.IL I c.wis is th pTLsIdIn JudgL 1 bus thL udgmcnt is

incorrect. We sustain appellant’s second point ot error. We modify the trial court’s judgment to

sho the presiding juthzc is thc llonoiahle John Criuzot S [i\ R A1P P 4 2(b) BnIei i.

State, 865 SW2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. Crim, App. 1993); Asberrv v State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 5293O

(Tex. App.—Da11as 1991, pet. ref d).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

Tix. R. App. P. 47

1 ii 649F. U05

ICE

—3—
(nurt uf Appcah

Fif11i 3iitrict 01 cxa tt 1at1a.i

JUDGMENT

ERIC RFU. CLARK. AppeHant

No. 05-I 1-01649-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas, (Tr.CLNo.

Fl 1-70569-K).

Opinion delivered by Justice Richter,

Justices Bridges and Lang participating.

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

as follows:

The section entitled “Judge Presiding’ is modified to show “Hon. John Creuzot.”

As modified w AFFIRM thc trial court’s judgment

Judgment entered September 1,2012.

AlII