Miguel Angel Leyva v. State of Texas ( 2009 )

Opinion filed May 21, 2009

Opinion filed May 21, 2009

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                  ___________

                                                          No. 11-08-00251-CR

                                 __________

                                  MIGUEL ANGEL LEYVA, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 104th District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. 15794B

                                              M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating Miguel Angel Leyva=s guilt for the offense of aggravated assault.  We affirm.

                                                         Procedural Background

Appellant originally entered a plea of guilty. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1,000 fine and a $1,000 fine.  At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for four years and a $1,000 fine.

                                                                Issue on Appeal

In his sole issue, appellant invites this court to revisit our holdings in Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App.CEastland 1996, pet. ref=d), and Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.CEastland 2001, pet. ref=d), and extend a factual sufficiency of the evidence review to the punishment assessed.  This we decline to do.

The trial court assessed punishment within the range authorized by the legislature under Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 12.33 (Vernon 2003), ' 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2008).  A penalty assessed within the range of punishment established by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bradfield, 42 S.W.3d at 354.  The issue is overruled.

                                                                        Holding

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RICK STRANGE

JUSTICE

May 21, 2009

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.