### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 50 -C R

______________________________ J ASON MI L L ER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 34421-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issThe trial c ourt did not conduct a he aringon Mil l er 's m otion for new tr ial, which wa s 1 overr uled by operation of law. 2

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON J ason Miller has appea led from his c onviction on his ope n plea of g uilty to the third-deg ree f e lo n y o f f e n s e o f dr iv in g w h il e in to xic a te d. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.04 (Ve rnon 2003), § 49 .0 9( b) (2 ) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 07 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d Mil le r to fi ve y e ars' i mpri so nme nt. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34 (Ve rnon 2003). On appe al to this Court, Mi ller conte nds, in a si n gl e p o i n t of er ror, that the punishment assessed is disproportionate to his crime. Miller' s motion for new trial c ontains a contention that the
se nte nc e wa s d isp ro po rt ion a te to t he of fe ns e . Amot ion

fo r n e w tri a l is an app rop ri a te wa y to prese rve this ty

pe of c laim for re view. See W ill iam so n v . S

tate , 1 7 5 S. W. 3 d 522, 523–24 ( T e x. 1 App.—Texarkana

2005, no pet.); De lac ru

z v . S tate , 167 S.W .3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). Texas courts have traditionally h eld t hat, as longas the punishment assesse d is within t he rang e pre scribed by

the L egi s l at u re in a valid statute, the punishment is not ex cessive, c ruel, or unusual. See , e.g. , Jor da n v . S tate , 4 9 5 S
. W
. 2 d

9 4 9 , 9 5 2 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 3 ). He re , M i l l er 's sentenc e fa lls withi n the applica ble ra ng e of two to t en y ear s and a f ine of up to $10,000.00. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34. That does not end the inquiry . A prohibition ag ainst g rossly di s p ro p o rt i o nate punishment survives under

the Eig hth Ame n d

me nt t o th e Un ited States Consti tution apart fr om any consideration3

of wh e the r t he punis hme nt a sse sse d is wi thi n the ra ng e e sta bli sh e d b y

the L e g isl a tur e . U .S. C O N ST . a me nd . V I I I ; s ee So le m v . H e lm , 4 63 U. S. 2 77 , 2 90 (1 98 3) ; Harmelin v. M ichigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1 99 1) (S c a lia , J ., pl ura lity op .) ; J ac k so n v . S tate , 989 S.W .2d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; Lac k

e yv . S tate , 881 S.W. 2d

41 8, 42 0– 21 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 1 99 4, pe t. r e f' d) ; see
a ls o E xp a r teCh a v ez , 2 1 3 S
. W .3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (desc ribing this principle as involving a " very

limit ed, ' exceeding ly

rar e,' and somewhat amorphous" revie w). Solem had sug g ested, a s a three -par t test, that an appellate court consider: (1) the gr avity of the offense compared with the harshness of the pe nalty ; (2) the se ntence s imposed for similar cr imes in the same jurisdi ction; and (3) the sentenc es imposed for c ommissi on of the same crime in other jurisdictions. See Solem , 463 U.S. at 292. Ha rm e lin at least ra ised questions about the viability of the Solem three -par

t test. I n fac t, it was subsequently held t hat proportionality survived Ha rm e lin , but that the Solem three -par t t es t did not. Se e Mc Gr ud e r v . P uc k

e tt , 954 F.2d 313, 316 ( 5th Cir. 19 92 ); Lackey , 881 S.W
. 2 d at 4 2 0

– 2 1 . I n light of Ha rm e lin , the test has bee n ref ormulated a s an initial threshold comparison of the g ravity of the off ense w ith the severity

of the sente nce; a

nd then,
on ly if that in iti a l c omp ari so n c re a te d an inf e re nc e tha t the se nte nc e wa s g ro ssl y dis pr op or

tio nate to the offe nse should there be a c onsideration of the other two Solem fac tors—sentenc es for simil ar crimes in the same jurisdiction and sente nces f or the same crime in other jurisdictions. McG ruder , 95 4 F.2d at 31 6; Mu lli ns v . S tate , 2 0 8 S. W. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 ( T e x. A p p . — T e xar k an a 2 0 0 6 , no pet.); Lackey , 881 S.W .2d at 420–21.4

As sumin g , w ith ou t de c idi ng , that Mi lle r' s se nte nc e is g ro ssl y dis pr op or

tio nate to t

he c ri me he committed, there is no evidence in the rec ord from which we could compar e his sentenc e to the sentenc es imposed on other pe rsons in Texas or on persons in other jurisdictions who committed a simil ar of fense
. Se e Lat

ha m v . S tate , 2 0 S
. W .3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. re f' d); Da v is v . S

tate , 905 S.W .2d 655, 664–65 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. re f' d). W i thout such evidenc e, the re cord be fore us does not support Miller' s claim of demonstra ble er ror. Cf. Jackson , 989 S.W .2d at 846 (" there is no evidence in the rec ord re flec ting se ntence s impos ed for similar offe nses on cr iminals in Tex as or other jurisdictions by

which to make a

compar ison"). Th e re be ingno oth e r i ssu e s b e fo re us , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Marc h 31, 2008 Date D ecide d: April 11, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh