COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

L UI S FAB I AN GARCI A, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00195- CR

Appea l from 283rd District Court of Da llas County , Texas (TC # F- 0952073-T)

O P I N I O N L uis Fa bian Gar cia appea ls his conviction of ag g rava ted robber y of an elder ly person. Appellant enter ed an open plea of g uilty and the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten y ear s. For the rea sons that follow, we a ffirm. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY Whil e on defe rre d adjudication community supervision for theft of an air conditioner from

a churc h, Appellant robbed an elder ly woman at a g roce ry store by g rabbing her purse and drag g ing

1 her to the floor. The store’s secur ity came ras captur ed the robber y and the video was admitted into evidenc e. Appellant committed the robber y becaus e h e n ee ded money to buy drug s. Appellant enter ed an open plea of g uilty and the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten y ear s. P UNISHMENT I n his sole issue for r eview, A ppellant contends tha t the trial court a bused its discretion by sentenc ing him to a ten y ear term of imprisonment beca use the punishment violates the objectives

W e a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e g u i l t i n t h a t c a s e . L u i s F a b i a n G a r c i a v . S t a t e , N o . 0 8

- 0 9

- 1 0 0 1 9 4

- C R ( T e x . A p p . - - E l P a s o A u g . 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 )

.of the prohibitions, penalties, and corr ectional measure s in the Texas Penal Code. More specific ally ,

h e co m p l ai n s that the rec ord contains no evidenc e that Appellant could not be succe ssfully reha bilitated with a “milder” punishmen t

. T he State responds, in part, that Appellant failed to prese rve the alleg ed er

ror be cause he did not raise a ny complaint in the trial court. We ag ree . I n order to prese rve err or for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show appellant made a timely reque st, objection, or m otion. See T E X .R.A P P .P. 33.1(a) (1). Even c onstitut ional rig hts, including the rig ht to be fre e from crue l and unusual punishment, may be waived by failure to object. Rhoades

v. State , 934 S.W .2d 113, 120 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1996); Castaneda v. State , 135 S.W .3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.--Da ll as 2003, no pet.). Acc ording ly , we hold that Appellant was obliga ted t o prese rve the issue raised on appea l. When the tr ial court a nnounced the prison sentenc e and asked whether there was any rea son why sentenc e should not be imposed, counsel rep l ied, “No, Your Honor.” Whil e Appellant filed a motion for new trial, he alleg ed only that the verdic t was contra ry to the law and the evidenc e. This g ener al statement is insufficient to prese rve the specific arg ument raised on appea l. See Castaneda , 135 S.W .3d at 723 n.1 (Appe llant’s arg ument that his punishment was disproportionate was not prese rved by his motion for new trial which mere ly alleg ed that “the verdic t is contrar y to the law and the evidenc e.”)

. Appellant arg ues that he was not require d to object beca use an objection “would have serve d

no useful purpose” as the only issue befor e t h e t rial court was the appropr iate punishment and counsel had arg ued Appellant should rec eive trea tment f or his dr ug addiction. The useful purpose which would have been serve d by stating an objection at sentenc ing or by raising t he issue in a motion for new trial is that t h e trial court would have been made awa re of Appellant’s specific arg ument that a prison sentenc e violated the objectives of the Texas Penal Code at a time when the trial court could have ruled on the i ssue. Be cause Appellant failed to prese rve the is s u e raised onappea l, we over rule the sole issue a

nd aff irm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Aug ust 18, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)