### 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 34 -C R

______________________________ ADRI AN PARKER, 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. 35826-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 Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Adrian Parker has appea led from his convic tion on his open plea of guilty to the third-deg ree felony offe nse of possession of a controlled substanc e. SeeT EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481 .1 15 (c ) (V e rn on 20 03 ). Park e r wa s sen te nc e d b y the tr ia l c ourt

to s e ve n y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34 (Ve rnon 2003). On appe al to this Court, P arke r conte nds, in a si ng le point of err or, that the punishment assessed is disproportionate to his crime. Parke r' s motion for new t rial contains 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 cl ai m fo r revie w. 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. 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 , P ark 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 consideration of wh e the r t he punis hme nt a sse sse d is wi thi n th e ra ng e e sta bli sh e d by the L e g isl a tur e . U .S. C O N ST .3

a me nd . V I I I ; see 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., plu

ra lity op .) ; Du nn v . S

tate , 9 97 S.W. 2d

88 5, 89 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 1 99 9, pe t.
re f' d) ; J ac k so n v . S tate , 9 89 S.W. 2d

84 2, 84 5 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 19 99 , no p e t.) ; Lac k

e yv . S tate , 88 1 S. W.2 d 4 18 , 4 20 –2 1 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 1 99 4, pe t. r e f' d) ; see also Ex parte Chavez , 213 S.W
. 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( d e s c r ib in g th is p r in c ip le a s inv o lv in g a " v ery 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 ); Dunn , 9 97 S.W. 2d a t 89 2; Lackey , 881 S.W .2d at 420–21. I n light of Ha rm e lin , the test has be e n r e fo rm

ulate d a s an in iti a l thr e sh old c omp ari so n of the g ra vit y of the of

fe ns e wi th t

he se ve ri ty of the sente nce; a

nd then, only

if that initial compar ison cre ated an infere nce that the sentenc e wa s g rossly disproportionate to the off ense should ther e be a

consideration of th e other two Solem fa c tor s— (1) se nte nc e s f

or sim ila r c ri me s in

the same jur isd ic tio n a

nd (2 ) s e nte nc e s f

or the same crime in other

ju ri s dictions. McG ruder , 9 54 F .2 d at 31 6; Mu lli ns v . S tate , 208 S.W .3d 469, 470 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; Dunn , 9 97 S.W. 2d a t 89 2; Lackey , 881 S.W .2d at 420–21.4

As sumin g , w ith out de c idi ng , th a t Park e 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 rec ord befor e us does not suppor t Par ker' s claim of demonstrable e rror . 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.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 27, 2008 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 28, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh