Court Opinion

ID: 9692172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:45:15.074582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:32.315817
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
Based on the bulk of the reasoning expressed in Ray v. State,1 I would address Appellant’s sole issue that his sentences are excessive and disproportionate. Appellant’s sentences are well within the range of punishment for these state jail felony offenses.2 Further, Appellant has presented nothing to show comparative sentences for burglary of a building offenses or to show why his sentences are disproportionate to the sentences of others convicted of the same or similar offenses.3 Appellant contends that the trial court found little or nothing mitigating in the evidence he introduced at the hearing, but the sentences of only twelve months would seem to belie this contention.
Based on all the evidence, I cannot conclude that Appellant’s sentences are disproportionate or that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment. I would therefore overrule his sole issue on the merits and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

. 119 S.W.3d 454, 458-59 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d). I recognize that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the issue of a void statute can no longer be raised for the first time on appeal. Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). I therefore do not rely on that statement in Ray that “the unconstitutionality of a statute may be raised for the first time on appeal.” Ray, 119 S.W.3d at 458.

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35(a)(b) (Vernon Supp.2009) (providing that range of punishment for state jail felonies is 180 days to two years’ confinement as well as a fine of up to $10,000).

. See Moore v. State, 54 S.W.3d 529, 541-42 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).