1 CASE NO. 12

- 15 -00171CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER

, TEXAS

JIMMY ANDREW DAVIS, JR., Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the

3 RD Judicial District Court,

Anderson County, Texas

(Trial Court No. 31760)

Honorable MA RK CALHOON

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

MARK W. CARGILL

TBC# 00787201

701 N. Elm

Palestine, Texas 75801

903/729-8011

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED ACCEPTED

12-15-00171-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

9/28/2015 11:22:57 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK2 PARTIES

JIMMY ANDREW DAVIS, JR. APPELLANT

Mark W. Cargill

Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

701 N. Elm

Palestine, Texas 75801

Allyson Mitchell

District Attorney

500 N. Church Street

Palestine , Texas 758013 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents

...................................................................................................... .. 3

Index of Authorities................................................................................................

..... 4

Statement of the Case........................................................................

....................... . 6

Point of Error Number One................................................

..................... ......... 6

Statement of Facts.................................................................................

................... . 6

Point of Error Number One Restated...................................................

................. . 6

Summary of Argument ...

................................................... .................. ................. . 6

Argument .......................................................

............................................. ................ . 7

Prayer.........................................................................................................

.................. 9

Certificate of Service..............................................................................

................. . 104 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIO NS

U.S. CONST. amend VIII......................................................................................... 6

TEX. CONST. art. I sec. 13 .................................................................................. 6

STATUTES

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. Sec. 12.3 4

......................................................................... 8

CASES

Federal

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2 680,

115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991) 7

McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F. 2d 313 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 849,

113 S. Ct. 146, 121 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1992) 7

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983) 7

State

Bell v. State, 233 S.W. 3d 583 (Tex. App. Waco 2007, pet dismissed) 8, 9

Davis v. State

, 905 S.W. 2d 664 (Tex. App

– Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d) 7

Dunn vs. State, 997 S.W. 2d 885 (Tex. App.

– Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) 7

Hernandez v. State, 10 S. W. 3d 812 (Te x. App.

– Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d) 7

Hicks v. State, 15 S.W. 3d 626 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th dist. ] 2000,

pet ref’d) 7

Hoitt v. State, 28 S.W. 3d 162 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2000, no pet) 8,9

Jackson v. State, 989 S.W. 2d 842 (Tex. App.

– T exarkana 1999, no pet.) 8

Lackey v. State, 881 S.W. 2d 418 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1994, pet ref’d) 7

Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Ct of Crim Appeals, April 18, 2012) 8,9

Matthews v. State, 918 S.W. 2d 666 (Tex. App.

– Beaumont 1996, pet ref’d) 7

McCoy v. State, 932 SW 2d 720, (Tex. App. 1996, pet refused) 8,9

Puga v. State, 916 S.W. 2d 547 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1996, no pet.) 7

Simmons v. State, 994 S.W. 2d 11 (Tex. App.

– T yler 1996, pet. ref’d) 7

Sulivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755 ( Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) 75 CASE NO. 12

- 15

- 00171CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER , TEXAS

JIMMY ANDREW DAVIS, JR. Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the

3 RD Judicial District Court,

Anderson County, Texa s

(Trial Court No. 31760 )

Honorable MARK CALHOON

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

MARK W. CARGILL

TBC# 00787201

701 N. Elm

Palestine, Texas 75801

903/729

- 8011

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, JIMMY AN DREW DAVIS, JR. the Appellant, and files this his

Brief of Appeal in the above

- entitled and numbered cause.6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On March 24, 2015, Defendant, JIMMY ANDREW DAVIS, JR.

, was found guilty

of MANUFACTURING AND DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBS TANCE PG1 <1G,

DRUG FREE ZONE in a jury trial, on 6/5/2015 the Court sentenc ed him to 30 years

in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division

. Defendant timely

appeal ed

.

ISSUE PRESENTED

POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

The trial court erro red in rendering judgment and sentencing Appellant to 30

years incarceration because that sentence was grossly disproportionate when

considered in light of other sentences for the same offense and in light of the facts

and circumstances which constituted t he offense.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Court considered all testimony of the punishment trial and other

testimony from Defendant and other witnesses to render their sentence.

( Sentencing RR Vol. 1, page 12)

POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE RESTATED

The sentenc e is excessive and is grossly disproportionate to the crime

commit t ed.

S UMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Each Defendant is guaranteed under the constitution of punishment free if

cruel and unusual treatment. To sentence a Defendant to a sentence that is7

disproportiona tely high violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment.

ARGUMENT

Both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit cruel

and unusual punishment. US Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art I sec. 13. Since there

are no t any distinctions between the state and federal protections against cruel or

unusual punishment, an appeals court should address such claims together. See

Simmons v. State , 944 S.W. 2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.

– Tyler 1996, pet. Ref’d) Davis v.

State , 905 S.W.2 d 664, 665 (Tex. App.

– Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d).

It is possible for a sentence to fall within a permitted punishment range and

yet “run afoul of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual

punishment. “ Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 290, 103 S . Ct. 3001, 3009, 77 L. Ed. 2d

637 (1983). The Supreme Court revised the question of disproportionate sentences

in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991). In

discussing Harmelin , the Fifth Circuit has stated that “d isproportionality survies:

Sloem does not.” McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F 2d 313, 316 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied 506

U.S. 849, 113 S. Ct. 146, 121 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1992). Under McGruder , a court must first

determine whether the sentence is “grossly disproportion ate to the offense.”

McGruder

, 954 F. 2d at 316. Once the court of Appeals finds the sentence grossly

disproportionate, the court then considers the remaining factors of the Solem test

and compares the sentence received to (1) sentences for similar crime s in the same

jurisdiction and (2) sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Several

immediate Texas courts have analyzed proportionality claims in the manner8

recommended by the Fifth Circuit in McGruder . See Hicks v. State , 15 S.W. 3d 626

(Te x. App.

– Houston {14 th Dist. } 2000, pet. ref’d); Hernandez v. State , 10 S.W. 3d

812 (Tex. App.

– Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d); Dunn v. State , 997 S.W. 2d 885 (Tex.

App.

– Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W. 2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.

–

Corpus Ch risti 1998, no pet.); Puga v. State , 916 S.W. 2d 547, 549

- 50 (Tex. App.

-

San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Matthews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 668

- 69 (Tex. App.

–

Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) an Lackey v. State , 881 S.W. 2d 418, 420

- 421 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1994, pet ref’d). The Eighth Amendment proscribes grossly

disproportionate sentences, even sentences that fall within the statutory range of

punishment. Jackson v. State , 989 S. W. 2d 842, 845

- 46 (Tex. App.

– Texarkana

1999, no pet).

Appellant was charged with a 3 rd degree felony offense of

Manufacturing/Delivering of Controlled Substance PG1<1G , drug free zone

.

Appellant was found guilty to the charged offense but his punishment was

grossly disproportionate to the crime. An individual adjudged guilty of a f elony of

this degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any

term of not more th a n 10 years or less than 2 years and in addition to the

imprisonment, may be assessed a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Additionally,

Defendant had enhancements of previous convictions which made the range of

punishment not more than 99 years to life or less than 25.

The sentence of 3 0 years’ incarceration is grossly disproportionate

.

In terms of other manufacturing/delivery of controlled subs tance PG1<1G

drug free zone cases, the facts which made up the gist of the manufacturing/delivery9

of controlled substance PG1<1G drug free zone, now before this Court, this Court

must conclude tha t the punishment assessed, the sentence of 30 years’ confine ment

is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed.

Accordingly, this Court must proceed to the next t w o steps in the McGruder

analysis: (1) sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and (2) sentences

for the same crim e in other jurisdi ctions. Appellant is guilty of the offense charged,

but his punishment is excessive. Punishment for the worst possible

manufacturing/delivery of a controlled substance PG1<1G, drug free zone cannot

exceed a 1 0 years sentence life with enhancements. Appe llant was sentenced to 30

years

. It is clear that other much more serious manufacturing/delivery of a

controlled substance PG1<1G drug free zone convictions resulted in significa nt ly

less harsh sentences than Appellant received. Simply stated, the punish ment

assessed against Appellant, while legally within the range of punishment available

to the Court, exceed what was right and fair. Thirty years’ confinement in prison is

not proportionate for the offense of manufacturing/delivery of a controlled

substa nce PG 1<1G drug free zone in this situation and under these facts and

circumstances. Accordingly, the sentence must not stand. Appellant is entitled to a

new punishment hearing.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays this Honorable

Cou rt sustain the point of error raised hereinabove, and vacate the commitment to

the Texas Department of Corrections Institutional Division remand the case for a

new sentencing hearing.10 Respectfully submitted,

CARGILL & ASSOCIATES

BY: /s/ Mark W. Cargill

Mark W. Cargill

SBN: 00787201

701 N. Elm

Palestine, Texas 75801

Telephone: 903/729

- 8011

Facsimile: 903/729

- 5112

cargillaw@earthlink.net

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is the certify that on September 27 , 2015, a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney’s Office, Anderson

County, and all other interested parties, by hand delivery , mail, and/or facsimile and

regular mail.

/s/Mark W. Cargill

Mark W. Cargill

Word Count

On this 27 th day of September 2015, I, Mark W. Cargill, hereby certifies that this

brief has a word count of 1598

.

_______________________________________________ Mark W. Cargill