AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 10, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00558-CR

No. 05-21-00559-CR

No. 05-21-00560-CR

THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-82267-2018, 380-82268-2018, 380-81981-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Garcia

Appellant Thomas Jr Garcia, III appeals three judgments adjudicating guilt

and sentencing him to terms of imprisonment. He raises one issue in which he argues 

that the trial judge abused his discretion either by (1) sentencing him to prison

instead of continuing his community supervision or (2) imposing excessive 

sentences. We affirm.
–2–

I. Background

In 2018, appellant was charged with two first-degree felony cases of 

aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial judge deferred findings of 

guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, and made affirmative 

deadly-weapon findings. 

In 2019, appellant was charged with second-degree felony aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial judge deferred a finding 

of guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, and made an 

affirmative deadly-weapon finding.

In 2020, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt in all three cases, 

alleging that appellant had violated several terms of his community supervision. At 

the consolidated hearing of the three motions, appellant pleaded true to the State’s 

allegations. There was no plea agreement. 

After hearing evidence and argument, the trial judge sentenced appellant to 

twelve years’ imprisonment in one aggravated-robbery case, eight years’ 

imprisonment in the other aggravated-robbery case, and six years’ imprisonment in 

the aggravated-assault case. 

II. Analysis

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial judge abused his 

discretion by sentencing him to prison instead of continuing his community 
–3–

supervision. Alternatively, appellant argues that the sentences imposed were 

excessive.

The State responds that appellant failed to preserve error in the trial court and 

that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in any event.

We have held that an appellant must preserve in the trial court certain 

challenges to his punishment, such as challenges based on the Eighth Amendment, 

Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.), and 

challenges based on the objectives stated in § 1.02 of the Texas Penal Code, 

Littlebird v. State, No. 05-17-00709-CR, 2018 WL 2926811, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Dallas June 7, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). But 

appellant does not rely on the Eighth Amendment or on § 1.02. Instead, he argues 

only that, based on the evidence, the judge’s decisions do not best serve the interests 

of justice, the community, appellant, and his family. His appellate argument is 

generally similar to his closing argument in the trial court.

Assuming without deciding that appellant adequately preserved error, we 

conclude that appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion.

A trial judge has wide discretion in sentencing, and we generally will not 

disturb the decision on appeal as long as (1) the sentence is within the proper range 

of punishment and (2) there is some evidence upon which the trial judge could have 

relied in assessing punishment. Sanchez Cabrera v. State, No. 05-20-00293-CR, 

2021 WL 1996817, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 19, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not 
–4–

designated for publication) (citing Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1984)).

Appellant does not dispute that his three sentences are within the statutory 

ranges for his crimes. Indeed, his sentences are at the lower ends of the statutory 

ranges. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32(a) (sentence range for first-degree felony is 

five to ninety-nine years or life); id. § 12.33(a) (sentence range for second-degree 

felony is two to twenty years).

And some evidence supports the trial judge’s decision that appellant’s conduct

warranted the prison sentences given rather than additional community supervision 

or shortersentences. As to the two robbery charges, there was evidence that appellant

drove three other people to a house where the other people beat one victim with a 

firearm and shot another victim in the chest. As to the aggravated-assault charge, 

there was evidence that appellant intentionally drove his car into another car, 

damaging that car and causing minor injuries to a person standing next to that car. 

Appellant admitted that he fled the scene even though he knew he had hit the other 

car. Appellant also admitted that he previously served six months in jail in 2017 for 

a felony theft offense. There was also evidence that, during his probation, appellant 

missed appointments with the probation office and used marijuana. 

Appellant introduced evidence that he violated the conditions of his 

community supervision because of financial difficulties, lack of transportation, and 

lack of access to internet. As to the robbery charges, appellant testified that he 
–5–

thought he was just taking the other people to the house so that they could purchase 

marijuana. As to the aggravated-assault charge, he testified that the collision was an 

accident and that he tried to drive away because he was scared. He testified that he 

would be successful if he were put back on probation. 

The trial judge is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the 

weight to be given their testimony. James v. State, No. 05-20-00453-CR, 2022 WL 

780445, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 15, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). Although appellant asserts that the trial judge ignored 

the evidence of appellant’s circumstances and situation, nothing in the record 

suggests that the judge ignored any of the evidence. Some evidence, including the 

evidence about the seriousness of the crimes in question, supports the judge’s 

punishment decisions. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse 

his discretion. See Sanchez Cabrera, 2021 WL 1996817, at *1

III. Conclusion

We overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

210558f.u05

210559f.u05

210560f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

/Dennise Garcia//

DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00558-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82267-

2018.

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek 

participating.

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

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 10th day of June, 2022.
–7–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00559-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82268-

2018.

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek 

participating.

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

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 10th day of June, 2022.
–8–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JR GARCIA, III, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00560-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81981-

2019.

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek 

participating.

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

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 10th day of June, 2022.