Appellant Cody James Turner pled guilty without a plea bargain to felony theft by possession. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Turner filed a motion for new trial, in which he argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the maximum term of confinement "based on the PSI and the Defendant's total lack of criminal history." The trial court denied the motion, and Turner filed this appeal. He contends that his punishment was "constitutionally disproportionate and unreasonable" under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U. S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. Turner did not object when the trial court pronounced sentence, and his motion for new trial did not specifically advise the trial court of his complaint that his sentence was disproportionate under the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (To preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely request, objection, or motion that states the grounds for the ruling with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint.). We do not see where the issues were presented to the trial court for consideration.

The Eighth Amendment provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." ⁽¹⁾ U.S. Const. amend. VIII; see generally Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 1420-21, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) (The Fourteenth Amendment made the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applicable to the states.). Felony theft by possession of property valued at $1500 to $19,999.99 is a state jail felony, for which the punishment range is confinement for 180 days to two years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35(a), (b) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2006). As long as the punishment assessed is within the range authorized by the Legislature in a valid statute, generally the punishment is not considered excessive, cruel, or unusual. See Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). In this case, Turner received the maximum confinement authorized by statute. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35(a), (b); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4). Even if the issue is preserved for appellate review, Turner's punishment is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. It does not exceed the statutorily-authorized range. See Harris, 656 S.W.2d at 486; Jordan, 495 S.W.2d at 952.

In Solem, the United States Supreme Court set forth a three-pronged test for analyzing proportionality, under which the court should consider (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290, 292, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1983); see also Mathews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd); Puga v. State, 916 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.); McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992). Though Turner's sentence is the maximum term of confinement authorized by the applicable statutes, it is within the range the Legislature has determined constitutes an appropriate punishment for this kind of crime. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35(a), (b); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4). Turner provided no evidence comparing his sentence with those imposed against other defendants in Texas and in other jurisdictions for similar offenses. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. Turner cites cases that discuss the federal sentencing guidelines, but the federal sentencing guidelines do not apply to this case. Harper v. State, 930 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Tex. App.--Houston [1^st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) Even if the issue is properly before this Court, nothing in this record establishes that Turner's sentence was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 290-91; McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316.

We overrule Turner's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on July 12, 2007

Opinion Delivered October 3, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. Turner does not argue that the Texas Constitution affords greater protection than the United States Constitution. Furthermore, Turner's brief does not provide any argument regarding Article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (To adequately brief a state constitutional issue, an appellant must present specific arguments and authorities supporting his claims.).