Laboriel-Guity v. State, 336 S.W.3d 754

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; PSI prepared and punishment hearing held.
Victim Andrea Franklin testified Appellant brandished a knife, forced a ride, attempted to restrain her, and caused injuries.
Appellant testified he acted in desperation to pay for his son's surgery and did not intend to harm Franklin.
Trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to thirty years' confinement.
Appellant argued the sentence was excessive due to lack of remorse; he did not timely object or seek a new trial.
Court held the sentence within the statutory range and affirmed, noting preservation issues and applicable case law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion	Laboriel-Guity argues lack of remorse shows abuse	State contends remorse is not required to justify within-range sentence	No abuse; within-range and supported by record

Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (limits on disproportionality review for within-range sentences)
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (abuse of discretion where punishment based on evidence absent at trial)
Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (preservation requires objection to severity in trial or new trial motion)
Rodriguez v. State, 917 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996) (no review of unpreserved sentencing error)
Enos v. State, 889 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (allocution and common-law rights related to sentencing)
McClintick v. State, 508 S.W.2d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (allocution history and right to speak before sentence)