Dustin Allen Lambert v. State, 03-17-00538-CR

Appellant Dustin Allen Lambert pled guilty to assault-family-violence (enhanced by two prior family-violence convictions), received an 8-year sentence suspended for 4 years, and was placed on community supervision.
The State filed a motion to revoke probation; at a unitary hearing the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Lambert to 7 years’ incarceration.
Underlying factual allegations involved incidents with two victims: Morgan Sneed (events pre-dating probation) and Baylea Builta (an alleged incident while on probation in November 2016, including injuries and disputed who struck first).
Probation-report evidence showed one missed appointment (October 2016) which Lambert attempted to remedy, late fee payments (partially cured by extra payment), and that he took a second job for income—probation had no record of an employment change.
Lambert completed Batterer’s Intervention classes, testified they helped him change behavior, and the brief argues his conduct reflects relapse rather than irredeemability; appellant urged alternatives to full incarceration (shock probation, added jail as condition, intensive treatment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 7-year incarceration was an abuse of discretion because it failed Penal Code goals (rehabilitation, proportionality, individualized treatment)	Lambert: sentence was unnecessary to prevent recurrence, defeated rehabilitation goals, and ignored less restrictive alternatives and his demonstrated progress	State: (implicit) revocation and within-range sentence justified by the new offense, probation violations, and trial court discretion	Trial court revoked probation and imposed 7 years’ incarceration; appellant argues on appeal this was an abuse of discretion and asks for vacatur and a new punishment hearing

Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (apellate review of sentencing for abuse of discretion)
Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognizing "zone of reasonable disagreement" for trial court rulings)
Brumbalow v. State, 933 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (pet. ref’d) (record must contain some evidence to support sentencing decision)
Montgomery v. State, 99 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (no pet.) (circumstances where no objection required to preserve appellate complaint)
Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (sentences within statutory range generally not disturbed on appeal)
Garza v. State, 841 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992) (no pet.) (examples of preserved appellate complaints without contemporaneous objection)
Jaenicke v. State, 109 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (pet. ref’d) (recognizing certain fundamental sentencing errors may be raised for first time on appeal)
Hernandez v. State, 268 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008) (no pet.) (similar principle on appellate review of punishment)
United States v. Castro-Juarez, 425 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing futility of requiring post‑sentence objection to preserve abuse‑of‑discretion claim)
United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009) (same)
United States v. Bras, 483 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (same)