### 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 72 -C R

______________________________ AMANDARENEE SHANNON , 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. 34617-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. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyShannon orig inally pled g uilty

in open cour

t to the offense of possession of a c ontrolled 1 substance ( methamphetamine) in an amount of less than one g ram an d wa s sentence d by the trial court to two y ear s' confine ment, probate d for f our y ear s. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 4 81 .1 15 (b ) ( Ve rn on

20 03 ); T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.35. Shannon admitted using ma rihuana , a contr olled substance, on or about August 28, 2007, which was less than one month after the trial court g rante d community supervision. The trial c ourt did not conduct a he aringon Shannon' s motion f o r n ew t ri al , which wa s 2 overr uled by operation of law. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.8. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Amanda Re nee Shannon ha s appea led from the revoc ation of her community

supervision on her ple a of " true" to t h e all eg ation contained in the State' s application to revoke

. The trial c ourt 1 sentenc ed Shannon to six teen months' co n fi n em en t i n a state- jail fac ility

. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.35 (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). On appe al to th is Court, S hannon conte nds, in a single point of err or, that the punishment assessed is disproportionate to her c rime. Shannon' s motion for new tria l contains a c ontention that the se nte nc e wa s d is pro po rt ionate to t he of fe ns e . Amot ion

fo r n e w tri a l is an a

pp ro pr iate 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. 2 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. , 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 , S h an n o n 's3

sentenc e fa lls withi n the applica ble ra ng e of 180 da

y s to two y ear s and a f

ine of up to $10,000.00. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.35. That does not end the inquiry . A prohibition ag ainst gro s s l y d isproportionate punishment survives under

the Eig hth Amendment to the United State s Co n s ti tu ti o n a p art fr om any

consideration 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 ; see So le m v . H e lm , 4 63 U. S . 277 , 2 90 (1 98 3) ; Harmelin v. M ichigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1 99 1) (S c a lia , J., pl ural ity 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 y v . 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 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 sug g ested, a s a three -par t test, that an appellate court consider: (1) the gr avity of the offe nse compa

red w ith the harshness of the penalty ; ( 2) the sentenc es imposed for simil ar c rimes 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 l east raised questions about t he viability of the Solem three -par

t test. I n fac t, it was subsequently held that proportionality

survived Ha rm e lin , but t h at the Solem three -par t test 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 , 8 8 1 S.W .2d at 420–21. In 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 initi a l com

pa ri so n cr e a te d an inf

e re nc e that the se nte nc e wa s g ro ssl y dis pr op or

tio nate to4

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 3 16; Mu lli ns v . S tate , 208 S.W .3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.); 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 even if it was, there is no evidence in the rec ord fr om which we c ould c ompare Shannon' s sentence to the sentenc es imposed on other pe rs o n s i n T ex as or on pe rsons in other jurisdictions who committed a similar offe nse. Se e Lat ha m v . S tate , 20 S.W .3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pe t. r e f' d) ; Da v is v . S

tate , 905 S.W .2d 655, 664–65 (T ex. App.—Tex arka na 1995, pet. r ef' d). Wit hout suc h evidenc e, the rec ord befor e us does not suppor t Shannon' s claim of demonstra ble er ror. Cf. Jackson , 989 S.W .2d at 846 (" there is no evidenc e in the record reflec ting sentence s imposed for simil ar of fense s 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: May 9, 2008 Date D ecide d: May 12, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh