(4) failed to object that his punishment was cruel and unusual. We find no merit in appellant’s contentions, each of which is addressed individually. 1. Failure to Object to Victim Impact Testimony. Appellant asserts his counsel should have objected to testimony by the victim and the victim’s family members that was presented before the trial court assessed punishment. Appellant contends that failure to object to a victim impact statement made before sentencing under section 42.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and reversible error. We disagree with appellant because article 42.03 does not restrict the information contained in a PSI report before the pronouncement of sentencing. See Fryer v. State, 68 S.W.3d 628 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). At the PSI hearing, the State called the
holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report holding that sentencing court may not adopt facts from codefendants presentence report that was not disclosed to defendant holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report holding victim impact statement statutes did not prohibit court from considering victims recommendations in presentence report holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report