### 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- 08 -0 01 61 -C R

______________________________ J AN AL L I SON AB EL , 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. 36692-A

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. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyThe trial court did not c onduct a he aringon Abel' s motion for new trial, whic h was ove rruled 1 by operation of law. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 21.8. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON J an Allison Abel has a

ppeale d from her

conviction on her

open p l ea o f guilty

to the thirddeg ree felony offe nse of driving while intox icated. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.04 (Ve rnon Sup p. 20 08 ). Th e tr ia l court se nte nc e d Abe l to se ve n y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt, to r un c on se c uti ve ly

wi th a compa nion case also on appe al bef ore this Court in cause number 06-08- 00160-CR, also decided this date. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34 (Ve rnon 2003). On app ea l t o this Court, Abel contends, in a sing le point of err or, that the punishment assessed is disproportionate to her c rime. Abe l's motion for ne w trial contains a c ontention that the
se nte nc e wa s d isp ro po rtio nat e to th e of fe ns e . Amot ion

fo r n e w tri a l is an a

pp ro pr iate wa

y to p r e s e r v e th is ty p e o f c la im for review. See W

ill iam so n v . S

tate , 1 7 5 S. W. 3 d

5 2 2 , 5 2 3

– 2 4 ( 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 held that as longas the punishment assesse d is within t he rang e pre scribed by

the L eg islature in a va lid statute, the pun i s h m en t i s n ot excessive, crue l, or unusual. See , e.g. , J

or 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 , Ab el 's
se nte nc e fa lls wi thi n th e a pp lic a ble ra ng e of tw o to te n y ears ' i mp ri so nm ent a nd a fi ne of up to $10,000.00. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34.3

That does not end the inqu i ry . A p rohi bition aga inst grossly disproportionate punishment survives under

the Eig hth Amendment to the United States Constitut ion apa r t f r o m a ny c o n s id eration of wh e the r the punis hme nt as se sse d is with in the ra ng e e sta bli sh e d by the L e g isl a tur e . U .S. C O N ST . ame nd . V I I I ; see So le m v . Helm , 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 urality 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 , 88 1 S.W. 2d 41 8, 42 0– 21 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 19 94 , p e t. r e f' d) ; see also Ex parte Chavez , 2 1 3 S
. W
. 3 d 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 sugg ested, as a three-pa rt test, that an appe llate cour t consider: (1) the g ravity of the offe nse compa

red w ith the harshness of

the penalty ; (2) the sentenc es i mposed for similar cr imes in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentenc es imposed for c ommissi on of t he 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. In fac t, it was subseque ntly held that proportionality

survived Ha rm e lin , but that the S

o lem t h ree -par

t test did not. Se e Mc Grud e r v . P uc k

e tt , 954 F.2d 313, 316 ( 5th Cir. 19 92 ); Lackey , 8 8 1 S
. W
. 2 d at 420–21. 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 se verity of the sentenc e; and then,
on ly if that ini tia l c omp ari so n c re a te d a n in fe re nc e that th e 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 sentenc es for the same c rime in other jurisdictions. McG ruder ,4

95 4 F .2 d at 31 6; Mu lli ns v . S tate , 208 S.W .3d 469, 470 (Tex. A pp.—Texarkana 2 0 0 6 , n o p et .); Lackey , 881 S.W .2d at 420–21. We do not believe the se ntence was g rossly disproportionate to the gravity of the off ense, but
e ve n if it w a s, the re is n o e vid e nc e in t he re c or d fr om whic h w e c ou ld c omp are Ab e l' s se nte nc e to the sentenc es imposed on other persons in T exas or on persons in other jur isdictions who committ ed a si milar offe nse. Se e Lat ha m v . S tate , 20 S.W .3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. re f' d); Dav is v . S

tate , 9 0 5 S. W. 2 d

6 5 5 , 6 6 4

– 6 5 ( T e x. Ap p . — T e xar k an a 1 9 9 5 , p e t. r e f

' d )
. Wi th o u t s u ch evidenc e, the r ecor d befor e us does not support Abel' s claim of demonstrable er ror. Cf. Jackson , 989 S.W .2d at 846 ("there is no evidence in the rec ord re flec ting se ntence s imposed for similar offe nses on criminals in Texas 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.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 11, 2009 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 12, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh