See T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 12. 31 ( m andat i ng aut om at i c l i fe s ent ence , w i t hout 1 th e p o s s ib ility o f

p a ro le , in c a p ita l c a s e s w h e re th e S ta te d o e s n o t s e e k th e d e a th p e n a lty). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0963- 10

SC O TT I E L O U I S FO R C EY , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

J OH NSON CO UNTY K EASLE R , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., P RI CE , W OMACK , H ERVEY , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS and J OHNS ON , JJ . , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N A j uryconvi ct ed Scott i e Loui s For ceyof ca pi t al m ur der , comm i t t ed in 2008, w hen For ceyw as a j uveni l e, and the j udge s ent ence d For ceyt o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. A m ong otherpoi nt s of err or , For ceyr ai s ed the fol l ow i ng thr ee r el at ed 1 compl ai nt s on appea l chal l engi ng t he cons t i tut i onal i tyof hi s s ent ence : ( 1) thathi s s ent enceF O R C E Y —2

Fo rc e y v . S ta te , N o. 10- 09- 00335- C R , 2010 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3820, at*1 ( T ex. 2 A p p .— W a c o M a y1 9 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). I d. a t * 8 -9
. 3 N o. PD –0123- 10, 2010 T ex. C r i m . A pp. L E X I S 1568, at*15 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 4 N o v . 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ). C f. P e n a v . S ta te , 2 8 5 S .W .3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (“ W e h o ld th a t, 5 byfai l i ng t o di s t i ngui s h t he r i ght s and pr ot ect i ons aff or ded underthe Texas due cour s e of l aw pr ovi s i on fr om thos e pr ovi ded underthe Four t eenth A m endmentbefor e the tr i al j udge i n thi s cont ext , Pena fa i l ed t o pr es erve hi s compl ai ntthatthe due c our s e of l aw p rov ides g rea ter pro tecti o n fo r ap p ell ate rev iew
. ”). vi ol at es the fe der al and st at e cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i ons agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm ent ; ( 2) that the tr i al j udge err ed i n rul i ng thatT exas Penal C ode Sect i on 12. 31, as appl i ed t o j uveni l e def endant s , befor e the Sept ember1, 2009, amendm en t, i s not
uncons t i tut i onal beca us e a l i fe s ent ence , w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e, for capi t al m ur der is c ru e l an d u n u su a l an d d isp ro p o rtio n a te; a n d (3 ) th a t h is s e n ten c e is d isp ro p o rtio n a te p u n i s h m e n tf

o rc a p i t a l m u r d e r . T h e Wa c o C o u r to f A p p e a l s r e

j e c t e d F o r c e y ’ s c l a i m s . We 2 3 gr ant ed For cey ’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onary r evi ew t o r evi ew the courtof appe al s ’ s r es ol ut i on
o f th e s e is s u e s . R ece nt l y , i n Me a d o u x v . S ta te , w e hel d thatthe Ei ghth A m endment ’ s proh ibit ion agai ns t crue l and unus ual puni s hm entdoes notbara j uveni l e fr om bei ng s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i tyof par o le
. For ceyhas neverar gued thatthe Texas 4 C ons t i tut i on’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm ent p rov ide s anygr eat er pr ot ect i on than the Ei ghth A m endment
. A ccor di ngl y , i n l i ght of ourdeci s i on i n Meadoux , 5F O R C E Y —3

w e affirm the co urtof ap peals ’s res olut i on of F orcey ’s fi rst tw o p o in ts of err or. W e al so agr ee w i th the court of appea l s ’ s r es ol ut i on of For cey ’ s thi r d poi ntof err or . For ceypr es ent ed

n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p po r t hi s c l a i m th a th i s s e n t e n c e i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e f o rth e c a p i t a l c r i me h e c o m m itte d . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls is a f

f ir m e d
.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : J anuary12, 2011 D O N O T PU BL I SH