Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed November 14, 2012.

In The Qtourt of Zppeat ffiftb 3itrirt ot Z1texa at afta No. 05-12-00501-CR No. 05-12-00502-CR No. 05-12-00503-CR No. 05-12-00504-CR No. 05-12-00505-CR No. 05-12-00506-CR REAHT LAKENDRIC SMITH A/K/A RIYADH SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-1 6240-K, F09-16241-K, F09-16242-K, F09-16243-K, F09-16244-K, F09-16245-K MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Myers Opinion By Justice Myers Reaht Lakendric Smith a/k/a Riyadh Smith waived a jury and pleaded guilty to four aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses, one unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) offense, and one burglary of a habitation offense. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2), 30.02(a), 31.07(a). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ imprisonment on each aggravated robbery conviction, ten years’ imprisonment on the burglary conviction, and two years’ confinement in state jail on the UUMV conviction. In three issues, appellant contends the sentences violate his constitutional rights under the United States and Texas Constitutions, and the judgments should be modified to show there were no plea agreements and to show the proper degree of the offrnse in one aggravated robbery case. We modify the trial court’s judgments and affirm as modified. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of thc facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 4Th because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

UNcoNsrITuTI0NAL SENTENCES In his first and second issue, appellant contends the sentences violate his constitutional rights under the United States and Texas Constitutions because they are grossly disproportionate to the offenses and inappropriate to the offender. See U.S. C0NST. AMEND. VIII; Thx. C0Nst ART. I, § 13. Appellant asserts he was under the influence of marijuana and Xanax at the time he committed the offenses, and because he was only sixteen years of age’ at the time of the offenses, the punishment assessed is severe. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaints for appellate review and, alternatively, the sentences are constitutional.

Appellant did not complain about the sentences either at the time they were imposed or in motions for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.l(a)(l); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (for error to be preserved for appeal, the record must show an appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion). Thus, he has not preserved this issue for our review.

1 n each case. appellant was certified to stand trial as an adult.

In addition, the trial court imposed punishment in these cases within the statutory range for the offenses. See TEx. PENAL. CODE ANN. § 12.32. 12.33. 12.35, 29.03(b), 30.02(cX2), 31.07(b). As a general nile, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither excessive nor unconstitutionally cniel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-DalIas 1997, pet. refd); see also Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Ta. Crim.

App. 1984) (as long as a sentence is within the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal). We resolve appellant’s first and second issue against him.

MoDin’ JUDGMENfl.

In his third issue, appellant contends the judgment in each case should be modified to show there was no plea agreement and that the degree of one aggravated robbery offense should be corrected. The State agrees the judgments should be modified as requested by appellant Appellant entered open guilty pleas to the offenses charged in the indictments. The judgments state appellant was sentenced to fifteen, ten, and two years pursuant to plea agreements. Thus, the judgments are incorrect We sustain appellant’s third issue. We modify the judgments to show the plea bargain terms were “open.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,27—28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529— (Ta. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. refd).

In cause no. 05-12-00503-CR, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony offense. The judgment, however, states the degree of ofThnse is “state jail felony.” Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We modify the judgment to show the degree of the offense is “1st Degree Felony.” See id. The records show the trial court orally pronounced a $1,000 fine in each case when it imposed the sentences. The judgments in cause nos. 05-12-00501-CR, 05-12-00503-CR, 05-12- 00504-CR, 05-12-00505-CR, and 05-12-00506-CR do not include the fine. When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls .See c’o/fi’v v, State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 199$). We modify the judgments to include a $1,000 fine. See TEx. R. App. p. 43.2(b); Biglev, 865 S.W.2d at 27--28; Asherrv, 813 S.W.2d at 529—30.

CoNc1usI ON In cause no. 05-12-00501-CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open,” and to include a $1,000 fine. In cause no. 05-12-00502-CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open.” In cause no. 05-12-00503-CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open,” the degree of the offense is “1st Degree Felony,” and to include a $1,000 fine. In cause no. 05-12-00504-CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open,” and to include a $1,000 fine. In cause no. 05-12-00505- CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open,” and to include a $1,000 fine. In cause no. 05-1 2-00506-CR, we modify the judgment to show “terms of plea bargain” is “open,” and to include a $1,000 fine.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.

LANAM ERS JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 120501F.U05

QIourt of ppai jfiftj itritt of txa at a1ta JUDGMENT REAFIT LAKENDRIC SMITH A/K/A Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADI-{ SMITH, Appellant No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09- 16240-K).

No, 05-12-00501-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 14, 2012.

LANA MYERS 6’ JUSTICE Court of ppea1% f(ftb aitria of exa% at aaua% JUDGMENT REAHT LAKENDRIC SMITH A/K/A Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADH SMITH, Appellant No.4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09-I 6241-K).

No. 05-12-00502-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODLI1ED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment

Judgment entered November 14,2012.

L4RS4 JUSTICE QIotirt of Ztppat jfiftlj Ottrict of rixa at a11a JUDGMENT REM-IT LAKENDRIC SMITH A/K1A Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADH SMITH, Appellant No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09- 1 6242-K).

No. O5l2-OO5O3-CR V. Opinion delivered by .Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee part icipatm g.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, (he trial court’s judgment is I’1ODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Degree of Offense” is modified to show “1st Degree Felony.”

The section entitled “Terms of Pica I3argain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1 ,000.”

As modified wc ALFIRN’1 the tiiai coult sjudgment

Judgment entered November 14, 2012.

LANS JUSTICE Court of ppta1% fifth ai%trict of Uexa% at aUa% JUDGMENT REAHT LAKENDRIC SMITH A/K/A Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADH SMITH, Appellant No.4 of Dallas County Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09-16243-K).

No. 05-12-00504-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 14, 2012.

LtS+ JUSTICE Court of ppeaIs fifth aiøtrftt of Ena at aaua JUDGMENT REAHT LAKENDRIC SMiTH A/K/A Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADH SMITH. Appellant No.4 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F09-16244-K).

No. 05-12-00505-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 14,2012.

LANA M RS JUSTICE Court of (ppea1% fifth i%thd of Ens at mafta% JUDGMENT REAHT LAKENDRIC SMITH AIKJA Appeal from the Criminal District Court RIYADH SMITH. Appellant No.4 of Dallas County. Texas (Tr.CtNo.

F09- 16245-K).

No. 05-12-00506-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Moseley and Fillmore THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$1,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment

Judgment entered November 14, 2012.

LANAM RS JUSTICE