### NUM BER 13-09- 178- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
JOEY GA RZA , JR . A KA JOE Y A . GA RZA A pp ellan t, A KA J OE Y GA R C IA

G A RZA , J R . A KA A M OU SE R EY N A , v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt of L iv e Oa k C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A g ra nd j ur

y i ndi cte d appel lan t, Joey Ga rza, Jr ., for th e offense of unlaw ful poss ess ion of a firear m by felon, a t hird- deg re e felony

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §O n M ar ch 1 3, 2 00 9, t he t r i al j ud ge s i gn ed a d oc um en t c al l ed “ T R I AL C O U R T ’ S AM END ED 1 C ER T I FI C AT I O N O F D EF EN D AN T ’ S R I G H T O F AP PE AL” and pl aced hi s i ni t i al s on t he l i ne co r r espond i ng t o t he p r epr i nt ed st at em ent : “ I s a pl ea- bar gai n case , but m at t er s wer e r ai sed b y wr i t t en m ot i on f i l ed a nd r ul ed o n b e fo re tra i l [s i c ] a n d n o t w i th d ra w n o r w a i v e d , a n d th e d e fe n d a n t h a s th e ri g h t o f a p p e a l .” 2 46.04( a) (1 ), ( e) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. Pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement, appel lan t pl eaded 1 guilty to the primary of

fens e a n d “true” to the enh ance me nt allegatio n. T he trial cou rt
ass ess ed puni shment at eig ht y ears’ i mpri sonment , pl us a $2, 500 fine. Ap pel lan t rais es four i ss ues for our

co nsi derati on. W e aff ir m.

I. M OT I ON TO S U PPRESS E V I DE NCE In hi s first is sue, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion to sup press in w hich he sought to su ppre ss evi d e n c e o f the f irearms, w hich th e po lice
se ized f ro m th e veh icl e he w a s d rivin g. A . St and ard o f Rev iew In St. Geor

ge v . St ate , t he c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s s tated : W hether a s p e cif icse ar ch or

se iz ure w as re asona ble i s a mix ed question of

law and fact and i s cond ucte d de novo. W e revi ew a trial court’s ru li ng on a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce under a bi furcat ed s tandard of re view. W e do no t e n gage in ou r own fa ct u a l re view; rat h e r, th e tri a l ju d ge is the sol e tr ier of fact and jud g e of credi bil ity of the w it ness es and t he w eig ht to be g iv e n t o t h e ir test imony

. Tri al cour ts are g iv en al most compl ete deferenc e i n det er mini ng hist or ic al facts. W e rev iew the re cord to deter mine w hether the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng i s s uppor ted b y the record and cor re ct under some t heor

y of law appl ic abl e to the c ase. 237 S. W .3d 7 20, 7 25 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( ci tati ons omit ted). W hen, as in thi s c ase, “a tr ial co urt mak es ex pli ci t f a ct f inding s, the a ppel lat e c our t det er mines w hether

the evidence (v iew ed in the light mo st favorable to the t rial court’s ruling ) suppo rts these fact f indings.” Sta te v. Ke lly, 204 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 18 ( Tex . Cr im

. App. 2006)

. W e the n rev iew “the trial court’s legal ruling de novo unle ss the trial court’s sup porte d-by-the-record explicit fact f indings are also disp ositive of the legal ruling.” Id

.3

B. T he Ev id ence On Oct ober 4, 2008, Georg e W est pol ic e off ic er Jorg e Me din a sto pped a p p ell ant for s peedi ng . Appel lan t c oul d not produce a dr iv er ’s li cens e or proof o f i nsurance and had no i denti ficat ion . W hen Off ic er Medi na asked hi m for his name and bir th da te, he repl ied , “J oey Garci a 02- 16- 1981” O ff ic er Ja son Lee, w ho had ar ri v ed a t th e s cene, as ked appel lan t’ s tw o pas seng ers for appel lan t’ s n ame, and they sa id itw as Joey

Garz a. Hea ri ng thi s, Off ic er

M edi na ag ain as ked appel lan t for hi s name, and he s aid i t w as “J oey Gar z a, Jr .” At t hat p oin t, Off ic er M edi na ar re ste d hi m for fail ure to ide nti fy. W hil e Officer Lee took
a p p e l l a n tt o t h e c o u n t y j a i l , O ffi c e r

M e d i n a s e a r c h e d t h e v ehi cl e an d s e i z e d a s a w e d
- o ff shot gun, a revolv er, and an AK-4 7 f rom th e trunk. C. A pp licab le L aw an d A nal ysis Appel lan t contend s (1) “he w as il leg all y detained because the o ff ic er w ent b ey ond d e t e n t i o n t o a ffe c t a b o g u s a r r e s t , ” a n d ( 2 ) “ h e w a s a r r e s t e d fo r fa i l i n g t o p ro p e r l y

i d e n t i fy him self aft er exte ns i v e q ue s ti on i ng , w hi c h ex c ee de d th e s c op e of th e traffi c s to p.” A person commi ts the off ense of failu re to ide nti fy “ if he int enti onal ly g iv es a fals e or

fict it iou s nam e, . . . to a pea ce of f icer w ho h as . . . (2) l awfully det aine d the person . . . .” T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 3 8

. 0 2 ( b ) , ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )

. T h u s , i f a p p e l l a n tg a v e O ffi c e r M e d ina a fals e or

fict it iou s n ame w hil e l awfully deta ine d, then his arrestfor fai lure to ide nti fy w as lawf ul and not “bo gus.” See id

. “A ppel lat e c our

ts re v iew the leg al deter minat ion of detenti on, reason abl e s uspi ci on, and proba ble cau se un der the Fourth Ame ndm entde no v o w hile granting g reat de feren ce to a trial court’s factu al f indings.” Sta te v. Sh epp ard , 27 1 S. W .3 d 28 1, 2 86
- 87 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 8). Routin e traf f ic stops are an alogous to inv estigati ve d e t ent ions an d are go ve rn e d b y Ter

ry v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968)

. Br ack en v . St ate , 282 S.W .3d 9 4, 97 n.24

(T e x. A p p .– Fo rtW o rt h 20 0 9 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Ber kem er v. McC ar

ty, 468 U .S. 420, 439 (1 984) ). A Terry

anal y si s h as tw o i nq uir ies : “( 1) w hether the off ic er ’s act ion w as jus ti fied at i ts inc epti on; a nd ( 2) w hether i t w as re asona bly

rela ted i n s cope to t he c ircums tanc es tha t justi f ie d t he initia l interferen ce.” Per ale s v . St ate , 1 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 8 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 3 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 -20). 1. W hether Officer Medina ’s Action w as J ustified at its Inception “A s a g eneral matter , t he dec is ion to sto p an a u tomobi le is reason abl e w here the police h ave probab le cause to believe tha t a t ra f f ic v iolation has occu rred.” W hren v. United S tates , 517 U .S. 806, 810 ( 1996) ; W alter v. Sta te , 28 S .W .3 d 53 8, 54 2 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2000)

. In this case, Off ic er M edi na s topped appel lan t for speed ing , a traff icv iol ati on thato c c u r r e d i n h i s p r e s e n c e . T h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u rtc o u l d h a v e re a s o n a b l y fo u n d t hat Off ic er M edi na had probabl e c ause for th e traff icst op. See Per ale s , 117 S.W .3d at 439. 2. W hether Officer Med i n a ’ s A ction w as Rea sonably Related in Scope to the Ci rcu mst ance s Ju st if y in g th e In te rf

eren ce in t he Fi rstPla ce Und er the sec ond Terry

inq uir y , “an inv est ig ati v e det enti on mus t be temporar y and last no longer than is necessary to ef fectu ate the pu rpose of the s t op. ” Florida v. Royer, 460 U .S. 491, 500 ( 1983) ; K o t h e v . Sta te, 152 S.W .3d 54, 63 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). “O nce a n off ic er

co ncl udes the i nv est ig ati on of the condu ct that ini ti ated the s top, a cont inu ed detent

ion i s p er mitt ed onl y

i f ther e i s reason abl e s u sp ici on to bel iev e anot her offen s e ha s be en or i s be i ng c om mi tt ed .” Sa ldiva r v. Sta te , 2 0 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 8 2 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth 20 06, n o pet .) ( emphasi s i n ori g ina l)

. W e hav e stated that , “[a] fter a bona fide [s top] for s peedi ng , an off ic er may then make an ar re st if anot her offense is di sc ov ered during the investigation. ” Per ale s , 117 S.W .3d at 439

. Th e United State s Supre me Court has re fused to pl ace any r ig id ti me l imi ts on Terry sto ps; “i nst ead, the is sue is ‘w hether theSect i on 5 21. 025 oft he t r anspor t at i on co de p r ov i des f or a dr i v er ’ s l i cense t o be car r i ed b y t he d r i v er 2 w h i l e o p e ra ti n g a m o to r ve h i c l e a n d e x h i b i te d u p o n d e m a n d b y a p e a c e o ff i c e r. See T EX
. T RAN SP
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 2 1 .0 2 5 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 1 9 9 9 ) . O n th e f a c ts o fth is c a s e , O f f i c e r M e d in a h a d a u th o r ity to r e q u e s t a d r iv e r ’s l i c e n s e . S e e M e e k s v . S ta te , 6 9 2 S .W .2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ). 5 police d ilig ent ly

pursue d a mean s of investig ation tha t w as likely to conf irm or dispel the ir suspicion s q uickly , during w hich time it w as nece ssary to detain the defend ant .’” Kothe , 152 S. W .3 d at64 -6 5 (quo ti n g United S tates v. Shar pe , 470 U.S. 675 , 685 -86 (198 5)). Here, O ff ic er

M edi na req uest ed appe ll ant’ s d ri v er ’s l ic ense and proof of i nsurance. In a traff icst op s it uati on, a n off ic er may d e m a n d this i nformati on. Dav is v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 45 n. 6 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997)

. Appel lan t’ s respon se to O ff ic er M edi na th at he di d not hav e any ide nti ficat ion g av e Off ic er Me din a reason abl e s uspi ci on to bel iev e he had committ ed anot her offense; i .e., fail ure to produce a dr iv er ’s l ic ense. See T EX . T R ANSP
. C O D E A NN . § 5 2 1

. 0 2 5 ( V e r n o n 1 9 9 9 )

. W h e n “ a n o ffi c e r c o n d u c t s a v a l i d d e t e n t i o n for 2 investig ation and then develops a reaso nab le suspicion thatthe de t a in ee is engaged in criminal activ ity , cont inue d det ent ion i s justif ied.” Per ale s , 117 S.W .3d a t 439

. Dur ing the cont inu ed det entio n, O ff ic er M edi na as ked appel lan t for: i denti ficat ion ; ow nershi p of the
v ehicle; his destina tion; and the ide ntity of the f ront-sea t passe nger . Du rin g a stop for a traff icv iol ati on by

the dr iv er , officers may q uest ion the dr iv er , req u e st informati on on the
v ehi cl e’s ow nershi p, and ask about the d ri v er ’s des ti nati on and the t ri p’s pur pose. Kothe , 152 S.W .3d at 63. The deta ining of f icer may also ask the vehicle’s oc c u p a n t s their ide nti ti es and t ravel plans

. Id . at64 n .36. Officer M edi na ar re ste d appel lan t upo n deter mini ng thathe h a d gi v en a false name. Thus, the e v ide nce does not s how thatthe detent ion l ast e d long er than w as neces sar

y to eff ectthe pur pose of the s top a nd to deter mine appel lan t’ s t ru e i denti ty

. See Royer, 460 U. S. a t 500 ; Kothe , 152 S.W .3d at 63;
see Shar

pe, 470 U. S. a t 6 8 5 -8 6 (decl ini ng to “e sta bli sh a per se r ule thata 20 -mi nute6

det ent ion is too lon g” und er Terry )

. W e c oncl ude t hat O ff ic er M edi na di li g entl y

pursued a means of inv est ig ati on th at w as likely to eithe r conf irm or dispel his suspicion s quickly , during w hich tim e it w as ne cessary to de tai n appel lan t. See K othe , 152 S.W .3d at 64-65. The ev ide nce does not s how Officer Me din a w as pur poseful ly prolo ng ing the detent ion or that the sto p las ted lon g er than
neces sar

y to eff ectthe pur pose of his inv est ig ati on. Therefore, t he i nv est ig ati v e det enti on
w as re asona bly re lat ed in sc ope to the c ircums tanc es that jus ti fied th e s top a nd det enti on in the first pla ce. See Terry , 3 9 2 U .S. at 29 ; St. Geor ge , 237 S.W .3d a t 726 ; Kothe , 152 S.W .3d a t 63. Vi ew ing the total ity of the c ircums tanc es in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng , w e c oncl ude t hat O f f ice r Me din a's ac ti ons w ere reason abl e under the ci rc umstan ces , and thatthe detent ion as a w hol e w as re asona ble

. By thi s s ame i ss ue, a ppel lan t c o n te n d s t hat h e w as il leg all y se ar ched becau se no probabl e c ause ex is ted. “A peac e off ic er

may ar re st an offender w it hout a w ar ra nt for any of fense comm itted in his pre s e n c e or w ithin his vi ew.” T EX . C ODE
. C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 14.01( b) ( Ver non 200 5)

. W hen a peace off ic er makes a l awful ar re st, he mayse ar ch, as inc ide nt t o that ar re st, the person ar re ste d. Chim el v. California , 395 U.S. 752 , 763 (1969 ); S ta te v . S ta u der, 264 S.W .3d 3 60, 3 64 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 200 8, pe t. re f’d)

. Off ic er Medina arrested app ellantfor failure to ide ntif y . Becau se ap pellan t com mitt ed th e of fense in Off ic er M edi na’ s p re senc e, he co uld l awfully ar re st him and s ear ch him i nci dent to t he
ar re st. App ellantalso argues “there was no conse nt giv en to search th e v ehicle. ” A def end antmay have stan ding to challenge the dete rmina tiv e reaso nab lene ss of the seizure inv olv ed i n hi s o w n det enti on and y et lac k sta ndi ng to chal len g e a search of the v ehi cl e he
w as dr iv ing

. Ma ys onet v. State , 9 1 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 4 ( Te x . A p p . – Te x a r k a n a 2 0 0 2 , p e t.I n Kot he , t he co ur t of cr i m i nal app eal s st at ed t hat an appe l l at e cour t m ay ra i se t he i ssue ofst andi ng 3 o n i ts o w n , a n d it m a y a n a l y ze th a t i s s u e a s a p a rt o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t c l a i m p re s e n te d

. K o th e v . S ta te , 15 2 S

. W

. 3d 54 , 60 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). 7 re f’d)

. The cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s h as sta ted t hat “ [o]nl y after a de fendant has est abl is hed hi s s tandi ng to compl ain may a c our t c onsi der

w hether he h as suff e re d a subst ant iv e Fourth Ame ndm entv iolati o n .” Kothe , 152 S.W .3d a t 59. “ To chal len g e a 3
search, the defendant must hav e a leg all y protec ted ri g ht to the ex pect ati on of pri vacy .” Par ker v. Sta te , 182 S.W .3d 9 2 3 , 9 25 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 6). In det ermin ing w het her a d e fe n d a n th a s a re a s o n a b le e xp e c t a t io n o f p ri va c y t h a tg o ve rn m e n ta c t io n h a s in va d e d , “we ask w hether the defendant had a subj ect iv e ex pect ati on of pri v acy i n the pl ace searched. If the an sw er

i s y es, then w e ask w hether the defendant’ s e x pect ati on of pr iv acy i s o ne th at society recogniz es a s r e ason able or justif iable u nde r the circumst ance s.” Id . at925- 26 (ci ti n g Sm it

h v . M ar yl and , 442 U.S. 735 , 740 (1979 )). He re , a p pel lan t t old Officer M edi na th at t he v ehi cl e bel ong ed to hi s mot her

. The
ev ide nce did not show

thatappel lan t bor ro w ed th e v ehi cl e from hi s mother or that he g ain ed poss ess ion of itfrom her w it h her cons ent or from someone author iz ed to g iv e per mis si on to dr iv e i t. Appel lan t’ s mot her w as not o ne of the pass eng ers i n the veh icl e. W e hol d, base d up on th ese facts, that appe llant did not have a reaso nab le expectat ion of priv acy in his mother ’s v ehi cl e and, therefore, lac ks standi ng to chal len g e i ts search. See Matth ews
v. State , 165 S.W .3d 1 04, 112 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 05, n o pet .) ( sta ti ng thata defendant “ has sta ndi ng to chal len g e the searc h of a car he d oes not o w n i f he show s t hat he g ain ed pos ses si on of the car from t he ow ner w it h the o w ner ’s co nsentor from s omeone author iz ed to g iv e per mis si on to dr iv e i t” ), see als o Par ker , 182 S.W .3d at 927 (s tati ng that a pe rson ha s an “expectat ion of priv acy in a car thathe bo rrowe d f ro m his girl f riend”).8

T here fore the trial court did noterr i n overruling the m otion to supp ress. T he f irst issue is
ov er ru led

. II. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In his seco nd issue , app ellantchallen ges the suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort his co nv ic ti on. “N o tr ial co urt i s a uthor iz ed to render a c onv ic ti on i n a fel ony ca se, cons is tent wit h Ar

ti cl e 1.1 5, ba sed upon a ple a of g uil ty ‘ w it hout suffici ent e v ide nce to supp ort the same .’” Me nefee v. State , 287 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ; see T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . § 1.15 (V er non 2 0 0 5 ). Evidenc e offered to su ppor t a g uil ty pl ea maytak e many

forms. Me nefee , 287 S.W .3d a t 13. The de fendant may con se n t t o the proff er of ev ide nce in te st im o n ia l or doc umentar

y form, or to an oral or

w ri tten sti pul ati on of w hat t he ev ide nce ag ain st him w oul d be, w it hout neces sar il y admit ti ng to it s v eraci ty or acc uracy . Id . Th is prof fer or stipulatio n of

ev iden ce w ill suf

f ice to sup port th e guilty plea so lon g as i t embraces ev er y co nst it uent ele ment of the charg ed offense. Id

. The defendant mayal so enter

a s w or n, w ritt e n s tatement , or may tes ti fy under

oath i n open cour

t, spec ific all y

admi tti ng hi s c ulp abi li ty or at lea st ack now led g ing g enerall y thatthe all eg ati ons ag ain st him are i n fact tr ue and cor re ct. Id

. So l ong as the jud ic ial co nfessi on c ov ers a ll of the e lement s o f the c harg ed offense, i t w il l suffice t o s uppor t t he g uil ty

pl ea. Id

. A person commi ts the off ense of unlaw ful pos ses si on of a firear m by a felo n w hen he pos ses ses a fire a rm after h e has been conv ic ted o f a felony and before t he fifth anni v ersar

y of h is re le ase from co nfinement follo w ing co nv ic ti on or hi s rele ase from
s u p e r v i s i o n u n d e r

c o mm u n i ty

s u p e r v i s i o n , parole , or

mandato ry

su per v is ion , w hic hev er

date is l ater

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 46.04( a) (1 ). Sect ion 12.42(a )( 3) of the penal co de prov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that “i f it is sh ow n on the t ri al of a . .

. thi rd -d eg re e felony thatthe defendant has been once before c onv ic ted of a felo ny , on conv ic ti on he shal l be puni shed9

for a secon d-de gree felon y .” Id . § 12.42( a) (3 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. Af ter the trial court accep ted app ellant ’s g uilty ple a t o the primary of fense and his ple a of “ tr ue” to the e nhanc ement al leg ati on, t he tr ial co urt admi tted int o ev ide nce the sti pul ati on of ev ide nce, w hic h i s s ig ned by app e lla n t and s w or n before the cl er k o f the dis tr ic t c our

t. The st ipu lat ion st ated, i n rele v ant p art, that “I j udi ci all y co nfess t o the foll ow ing facts and ag re e and sti pul ate t hat t hese facts are tr ue and cor re ct and c onst it ute t he
ev ide nce in thi s cas e[.] ” Appell ant judi ci all y confessed that on or about Octo ber 4, 2008, he “ did then and there, ha v ing been conv icted o f the f e lo n y o f f e n se of Theft,

. . . inten tiona lly

o r kno w ingly

p ossess[ ed] a f irearm before the f if th ann iv ersary of

[his] release from co nfinement follo w ing co nv ic ti on of sai d felony .” H e al so jud ici a llyco nfessed “t hat, pr ior to the c ommis si on of the afores aid offense, on t he 30t h day of Jul y , A. D., 2 0 07, .

. . [he] w as conv icted o f t he felony

offense of Tamperi ng w it h Gov er nment R ecords Defraud/H ar m.” The s ti pul ati on i ncl uded O ff ic er M edi na’ s p oli ce re por

t, wh ich des cr ibe d the fact s s ur ro undi ng the sto p of the v ehi cl e d rive n b y a ppel lan t, his ar re st, and the discovery

of the weapon s in the trun k. Beca use the stipu lation of ev iden ce em brace d every
cons ti tuentel ement of the ch arg ed off ense and t he enha ncement , i t s uff ic ed to su ppor t t he g uil ty plea and the ple a of tr ue. See Menefee , 287 S. W .3d a t 13. I ss ue tw o i s o v er ru led

.

III . D ENI A L OF C OM M U N I TY S UP E RV I S I ON In his thi rd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on w hen itdeni ed hi s req uestfor communi ty super v is ion and impos ed an eig ht- y ear pr is on s entenc e. Ar ti cl e 42. 12, s ect ion 3( a) of the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re broadl y auth or iz es a tr ial j udg e, after a g uil ty

pl ea, t o pl ace an el igible d e f endant on c ommunity su per v is ion w henev er

he
or she deems it“ in the b esti nterestof jus ti ce, the publ ic , and the defendant” to do s o. Ive y
v. State , 277 S.W .3d 43, 45 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ; see T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t.10

42.12, § 3(a) (Ver non Supp. 20 09)

. The g ra nti ng of communi ty su per v is ion i s a pr iv il eg e, not a r ig ht, and t he dec is ion to g ra nt c ommunity su per v is ion i s w hol ly

di sc re ti onar

y . Speth
v. State , 6 S.W .3d 530 , 5 3 3 ( T e x. C rim. App . 199 9). In rev iew ing a tri al court’s deter minat ion of the a ppropr iat e puni shmenti n any g iv en c ase, “ a g re at de al of dis creti on is allow ed th e sent encin g judge.” Jacks on v . St ate , 680 S.W .2d 8 09, 8 14 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. It is “ the g eneral ru le that as lon g as a s entenc e i s w it hin the proper rang e of pun ishm entit w ill notbe distu rbed on ap pea l.” Id . A trial court abuse s its discretion only if there i s n o ev ide nce or factual bas is for t he puni shmenti mposed. Id

. Ap p e l l a n t p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o u n l a wfu l p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m b y a fe l o n , w h i c h w as enhanc ed to a seco nd- deg re e f elo ny . The puni shmentrang e for a s econd -d eg re e felony is i mpri sonmentfor

a ter m of not more than tw enty ye ars or les s than tw o y ears, and a fine not t o ex ceed $10,000

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12.33( a) , ( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. The puni shmentas ses sed by the cour t—c onfinement for ei g ht y ears— is w it hin the puni shment
ra ng e es tabl is hed by

the leg is lat ur e for a pers on conv ic ted of a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See id . Th e stipu la t io n of

ev iden ce includ ed a ppe llant’s judicial con fession to the primary off ense and t he enha ncementalle gation. Bec ause there i s a factual bas is for t he puni sh m e n t im p o sed, w e hol d the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by i mposi ng an eig ht- y ear

pr is on s entenc e. See Jacks on , 680 S.W .2d a t 814

. Iss ue th re e i s o v er ru led

.

VI. C RUE L A ND U NUSUA L P UNI S HMENT In hi s four

th i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe eig ht- y ear se ntence viol ated the Ei ghth Amendment prohi bit ion ag ain st cr uel and unusu al puni shment

. See U .S. C ON ST
. amend. V III

. The E igh th A mendment do es not req uire s tr ic t propor ti onal ity betw een t he crime an d the sente nce; rat her, it forbids extreme sente nces th at are “grossly dis propor

ti onate” t o the cr ime. Ew ing v. California , 538 U.S. 11, 23 (200 3). Th e preciseV e ra v . S ta te , N os. 13- 05- 169, 170- C R , 2006 W L 5181930 , at * 3 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Aug. 29, 4 20 08 , pe t

. ref’ d) (m em . op . , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ).

S e e S o le m v . H e lm , 46 3 U

. S

. 27 2 (19 83 ). 5 11 cont ours of

the “grossly

dispropo rtiona te” stan dar d are un clear, bu t it applies o nly in “e x ceedi ng ly

rar e” and “e xtreme” cas es. See Lo ck yer v. Andr ade , 538 U.S. 63, 73 (200 3). T exas courts have tradition ally held th at, a s long as the pu nishm entassesse d falls w ithin the p uni shmentrang e presc ri bed by the leg is lat ure in a v ali d statut e, t he puni shmenti s n ot
ex ces si v e. See Jor

dan v . St ate , 495 S.W .2d 9 49, 9 52 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1973) ; Trevino v. State , 174 S.W .3d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. ref’d) ; see als o Es cochea
v. State , 139 S.W .3d 67, 80 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 4, no pet. ). 4 A p p e ll a n t ’s se n t e n c e fe ll wit h in t h e p u n is h m e n tra n ge fo r a se c o n d -d e gr e e fe lo n y. See T EX . P EN AL C O D E A NN . § 12.33( a)

. How ev er , t hat d oes not e nd th e i nq uir y . Tex as cour ts r e co gni z e tha t a prohi bit ion ag ain st a g ro ss ly di spropor

ti onate sent ence sur

v iv es under the federal co nst it uti on apar t from any

co nsi derati on w hether the puni shment
ass ess ed is w it hin the sta tute’ s p uni shmentrang e. W inchester

v. Sta te , 246 S.W .3d 3 86, 388 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2008, pet. re f’d) ; Mu ll ins v. Sta te , 2 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .)

. This C our

t has recog niz ed that “the vi abi li ty and mode of

appli cat ion of propor

ti onate anal y si s . . . has been que st io n e d s inc e the Supreme C our t' s d eci si on i n Harm elin v. Mi chi gan , 501 U.S

. 957 (19 91).” Tr evi no , 17 4 S. W .3 d a t 9 2 8 (cit in g Mc Gr uder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 315- 16 (5th Ci r. 1992) (di sc uss ing the v ar iou s o pin ion s i ss ued i n Harm elin and t hei r impac t on the Solemdec is ion )) ; see Sul livan v. State , 975 S.W .2d 7 55, 7 57- 58 5 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1998, no p et.) ( dis cussin g the impl ic ati ons of the Harm elin opi nio n and re v iew ing the propor ti onal ity of defendant' s s entenc e under the SolemandS e e a ls o M c G iffi n v . S ta te , N o . 1 3
- 0 5
- 5 6 1
- C R , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 , a t * 1 ( T e x . A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti, 6 A ug . 10 , 20 06 , no pe t

. ) ( m em . op . , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). 12 Mc Gr uder test s). As sumi ng , ar

guendo , the v iability of

a propo rtiona lity

rev iew , as w e did in Sul li van, w e w il l appl y

both the Solemand Mc Gr uder tes ts to t he facts of thi s c ase. See Sul li van , 975 S.W .2d at 757- 58. In bo th Solemand McGruder, w e look firs t atthe g ra v ity 6 of the o f f e n se a n d the harshnes s o f the penal ty

. Sole mv. Helm , 463 U .S. 272, 290- 91 (1 983) ; Mc Gr

uder , 954 F .2d a t 316

. 1. G rav ity

o f th e Of

fe nse W e j udg e the g ra v ity

of the o ff ense in li g ht of the harm c aused or threatened to
soc iety and the o ff ender ’s cu lpa bil ity . Mo or e v . St ate , 54 S. W .3d 529 , 542 (Tex. App. –Fort W o rt h 20 0 1 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Solem , 463 U.S. 291 -92). W ith re s p e c tto app ellant ’s culpa bility , the stipulat ion of ev iden ce sho w ed th at Off icer Medina foun d three f irearms in the t ru nk of the car

that appel lan t w as dr iv ing

. Fur ther , app ell ant j udi ci all y co nfessed to t he off ense. W ith respe ct to the harm ca used o r th reate ned t o society, t he purp ose of the of fense of unl awful posses si on of f irear m by

felon is to “p ro hib ital l felons from pos ses si ng w eapons at an y ti me at all pl aces aw ay from t hei r re si dence .” State v . M ason , 980 S.W .2d 6 35, 6 38- 39 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. W e c oncl ude t hat t he g ra v ity of the off ense w eig hs in fav or of a findi ng thatthe puni shmentw as not e xce ss iv e. See Waddy v . St ate , 880 S.W .2d 4 58, 460 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 1994, pet . ref’d) ( sta ti ng that“ [a]nyti me a person has posse ssion of

a f irearm, the th reat to pub lic safety rem ains . . . .”). 2. Hars hness of the Penal ty W hen c onduc ti ng an E ig hth A mendment propor ti onal ity anal y si s, w e may

co nsi der the s entenc e i mposed in li g ht of the acc used’ s p ri or offenses . W

inchester

, 246 S.W .3d a t13

390; Culton v

. St ate , 95 S.W .3d 401 , 403 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Di st.] 2002 , pet . ref ’d). Appel lan t pl eaded g uil ty to the t hird- deg re e felony offense of poss ess ion of a f irear m by felon. He p le a d e d “ tr ue” to the e nhanc ement al leg ati on, w hic h el ev ated the p uni shment
ra ng e to a sec ond- deg re e felony

. In l ig ht of the se ri ousne ss of the c ri me to w hic h appel lan t p le a d e d gu il t y a n d t h e fa c tt h a th e h a s a cr im in a l h is t o ry o f two o t h e r fe lo n y co n vic t io n s , we canno t s ay

hi s e ig h t- y ear

se ntenc e i s d is propor

ti onate to t he offense. W e the re fore find that his puni shmenti s n ot g ro ss ly di sproporti o n a te to the o ff enses for w hic h he w as convicted. T his f inding end s our ana ly sis unde r Mc Gr uder

. Se e McGr

uder , 954 F .2d a t 316; see als o Sul

li van , 975 S.W .2d at 757. Beca use there is no ev ide nce in the a ppel lat e re cord of the s entenc es impos ed for other si mil ar cr imes i n Tex as or

for t he s ame cr imes in other j ur is dicti ons, w e c annot per form a c om p a ra ti ve ev alu ati on us ing the re maini ng Solemfactors. See S ole m , 463 U .S. at 29 2; see als o Sul li van , 975 S.W .2d a t 757 -5 8. Therefore, w e hol d tha t app ell ant' s punis hment is neither g ro ss ly dis propor ti onate nor

cr uel and unu sual. W e overrule issue four. V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed 25th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.