Joshua Travis Roberson v. State

NO. 12-07-00202-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOSHUA TRAVIS ROBERSON, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Joshua Travis Roberson appeals his sentence of imprisonment for thirty-five years that he received following his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. In one issue, Appellant argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to support his punishment. We affirm. Background Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment before a jury. Ultimately, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for thirty-five years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed. Factual Sufficiency of Evidence as to Punishment In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the evidence was factually insufficient to support his sentence. A review of the evidence for factual sufficiency is inappropriate with respect to the assessment of punishment. See Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350, 351 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d); Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1998, no pet.); Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex. App.–Eastland 1996, pet. ref’d). Hence, we decline to conduct a factual sufficiency review of the evidence on punishment. The general rule is that as long as a sentence is within the statutory range, it will not be disturbed on appeal. See Gerhardt v. State, 935 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1996, no pet.) (citing Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). The punishment for aggravated sexual assault of a child is a term of imprisonment ranging between five and ninety-nine years, or life. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 22.021(e), (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2007). Since Appellant’s thirty-five year sentence falls within the permissible range set forth by the legislature, we will not disturb it. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled. Disposition Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. BRIAN HOYLE Justice Opinion delivered May 7, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH)