NUMBER 12

- 15
- 0007 7
- CR
IN THE TWELFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

ROXANNE YVETTE DAVIS , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas

Trial Cause Number 241 -1149- 14 

### STATE ’ S BRIEF
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

D. MATT BINGHAM Criminal District Attorney Smith County, Texas

AARON REDIKER Assistant District Attorney State Bar of Texas Number 24046692 Smith County Courthouse, 4th Floor Tyler, Texas 75702 Phone: (903) 590-1720 Fax: (903) 590-1719 Email: arediker@smith-county.com ACCEPTED 12-15-00077-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 8/5/2015 11:40:00 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK1 Table of Contents

Index of Authorities

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2

Statement of Facts

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3
Summary of Argument

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

I. I SSUES O NE AND T WO : By not objecting to her sixteen

- month sentence for state jail felony theft as cruel and unusual, appellant failed to preserve any al leged error for review.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 Standard of Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 Argument
................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 6
Certificate of Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ 10

Certificate of Service

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 102 I NDEX OF A UTHORITIES
Constitutional Provisions U.S. C ONST . amend. VIII

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 U.S. C ONST . amend. XIV

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

Federal Cases Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 ( 1991 )

................................ ................................ ......... 6 McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F. 2 d 313 ( 5 th Cir. 1992 )

................................ .............................. 6 Smallwood v. Scott , 73 F. 3 d 1343 ( 5 th Cir. 1996 )

................................ ................................ 8 Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277 ( 1983 )

................................ ................................ ...................... 5

Texas Cases Buster v. State , 144 S.W. 3 d 71 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2004 , no pet.)

................................ ..... 7 Curry v. State , 910 S.W. 2 d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995 )

................................ ..................... 7 Davis v. State , 119 S.W. 3 d 359 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2003 , pet. ref ’ d)

................................ . 7 Davis v. State , 905 S.W. 2 d 655 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1995 , pet. ref'd)

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

— Texarkana 1999 , no pet.)

........................ 6 Jacobs v. State , 80 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. App.

— Tyle r 2002 , no pet.)

................................ .. 7 , 8 Lackey v. State , 881 S.W. 2 d 418 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1994 , pet. ref ’ d)

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

— Tyler 1996 , pet. ref ’ d)

..................... 5 , 6 , 8

Texas Statutes Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.09
................................ ................................ ................. 6 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35
................................ ................................ ............................. 7 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03
................................ ................................ ............................. 7

Texas Rules Tex. R. App. P. 33.1
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 73 NUMBER 12

- 1 5
- 00 07 7
- CR
IN THE TWELFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

ROXANNE YVETTE DAVIS , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas

Trial Cause Number 241

- 1149

- 14 

### STATE ’ S BRIEF

T O THE H ONORABLE C OURT OF A PPEALS : Comes now the State of Texas, by and through the undersigned Assistant Criminal District Attorney, respectfully requesting that this Court overrule appellant ’ s alleged issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court in the above

captioned cause.

S TATEMENT OF F ACTS Appellant, with her counsel, entered a nonnegotiated plea of guilty to the offense of state jail felony theft as charged in the indictment (I Rep. ’ s R. at 4, 13 ;4

Clerk ’ s R. at 1 )

. After accepting appellant ’ s plea of guilty and hearing evidence on the issue of punishment, including testimony regarding her extensive criminal history of more than twenty

- three prior convictions 1 (II Rep. ’ s R. at 38) , the trial court sentenced her to confinement for sixteen months in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— State Jail Division without a fine ( Id . at 76) . Appellant raised no objection to her sentence at the time of fo rmal pronouncement and did not file
a motion for new trial ( Id . at 76, 79)

.

S UMMARY OF A RGUMENT Appellant forfeited any challenge to her sentence of sixteen months for state jail felony theft as cruel and unusual by failing to raise an objection in the trial court. Even had appellant preserved the alleged error, her sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense she committed, especially in light of her

extensive criminal history.

1 During the plea and sentencing hearing, appellant acknowledged that she had eleven prior felony convictions and twelve prior misdemeanor convictions, many of which were for theft offenses (II Rep. ’ s R. at 38).5

I. I SSUE S O NE AND T WO : By not objecting to her sixteen

- month sentence for state jail felony theft as cruel and unusual, appellant failed to preserve any alleged error for review

.

S TANDARD OF R EVIEW

“ The legislature is vested with the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties. ” Contreras v. State , 369 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2012 , no pet
. ) (mem. op.) (citing Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. Ap p. — Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd) ). “ Courts have repeatedly held that punishment which falls within the limits prescribed by a valid sta tute is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. ” Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 1996, pet. ref ’ d)

. Under the Solem test, “ t he proportionality of a sentence is evaluated by considering (1) the gravity of the
offense and the harshness of th e penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. ” Contreras , 369 S.W.3d at 690 (citing Solem
v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983) ). “ The application of the Solem test ha s been modified by Texas courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 1156

L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991) to require a threshold determination that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime before addressing the remaining elem ents. ”
Id

. (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992) ; Jackson v. State , 989 S.W.2d 842, 845

- 46 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1999, no pet.) )

.

A RGUMENT

In her two alleged issues , appellant argues that her sixteen

- month sentence for state jail felony theft constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article
1.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2 (Appellant ’ s Br. 5)

. U.S. C ONST . amends. VIII , XIV ; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.09 (West 2014). However , appellant did not object to her sentence at trial as cruel and unusual or raise the issue in a motion for new trial (II Rep. ’ s R. at 76, 79 ). As appellant did not timely object to her sentence as constituting cruel or unusual punishment, she failed to

p reserve any alleged error for review, and her first and seco nd issues should be

2 As appellant cites no authority requiring this Court to analyze her claims differently under federal or Texas law, they will be addressed together. Simmons , 944 S.W.2d at 14.7

overruled. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 (a) ; Contreras , 369 S.W.3d at 690 (citing Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) )

.
Even if appellant had not forfeited her claim , her sixteen

- month sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense to which she pleaded guilty , stealing a purse valued at less than $ 1,500 where appellant had been previously convicted
two or more times of theft , a state jail felony (Clerk ’ s R. at 1). See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 31.03 (e)(4)(D) (West 2014). Appellant ’ s sentence of confinement for sixteen months in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— State Jail Division without a
fine was well within th e range set for forth by the legislature for a state jail felony,
and therefore , “ the punishment is not prohibited as cruel, unusual or excessive per

se . ” Jacobs v. State , 80 S.W.3d 631, 633 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2002 , no pet. ) ; Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 12. 35 (a) , (b) (West 2014). “ In determining whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate, we consider not only the present offense but also an accused's criminal history. ” Buster v. State , 144 S.W.3d 71, 81 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2004 , no pet. ) (citing Davis v. State , 119 S.W.3d 359, 363 (Tex. App.

— W aco 2003 , pet. ref ’ d ) ). Appellant ’ s punishment assessed falls well within the permissible range, and when8

viewed in light of her extensive criminal history of twenty

- three prior convictions , is not grossly disproportionate to the offense s he committed. See Smallwoo d v. Scott ,
7 3 F.3d 1343, 1348 (5th Cir. 1996) (fifty

- year sentence under recidivist statute for stealing $27.64 in meat not grossly disproportionate based on defendant ’ s criminal history ) ; Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1994 , pet. ref ’ d ) ( sentence of thirty

- five years under recidivist statute for s hoplifting clothing
valued at $145 not cruel and unusual punishment ); Simmons , 944 S.W.2d at 15 ( sentence of fifty years ’ confinement and $5,000 for delivery of cocaine not grossly dispro portionate considering the defendant ’ s criminal history)

. Even assuming
that the threshold test for gross disproportionality was met , the remaining
elements of the Solem cannot be satisfied: “[ t] here is no evidence in the appellate record reflecting the sentences imposed on criminals in Texas or other jurisdictions who committed a similar offense; therefore, we may not enga ge in a comparative evaluation. ” Jacobs , 80 S.W.3d at 633 (citing Simmons , 944 S.W.2d at 15 )

.9 P RAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas prays that the Court overrule appellant ’ s alleged issues and affirm the judgment of the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texa s, in the above

- captioned cause. Respectfully submitted,

D. MATT BINGHAM Criminal District Attorney Smith County, Texas /s/ Aaron Rediker Aaron Rediker Assistant District Attorney SBOT #: 24046692 100 North Broadway, 4th Floor Tyler, Texas 75702 Office: (903) 590

- 1720 Fax: (903) 590

- 1719 (fax) arediker@smith

- county.com10 C ERTIFICATE OF C OMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), the undersigned attorney certifi es that the word count for this document is 1 ,082 words as

c alculated by Microsoft Word 2013

. /s/ Aaron Rediker Aaron Rediker

C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 5th day of August 2015, t he State ’ s
Brief in the above

- numbered caus e has been electronically filed, and a legible copy of the State's Brief has been sent by email to J. Brandt Thorson , attorney for appellant, at jbt@jbtfirm.com

. /s/ Aar on Rediker Aaron Rediker