### NUM BER 13-08- 0020 2-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

JOH N A ND REW

M YER S, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 77t h Dist rict C ou rt o f V icto ria C ou nt y , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Ap p e l l a n t , J o h n A n d r e w M y e r s , e n t e r e d a n o p e n p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e of onl ine so li ci tati on of a mi nor , a sec ond- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 33.021 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) . After hear ing ev ide nce, the tr ial courtsentenc ed My er s t o s ix teen y ears’ imp risonm ent and assesse d court costs. By a single issue, My ers argues that his puni shmentw as ex ces si v e and cons ti tutes cr uel and unusu al puni shmenti n v iol ati on of the E ig hth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See U. S. C ON ST
. amend. V III

.As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on a nd t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar w i t h t he f act s, w e wi l l onl y r eci t e t hem 1 h e re i n a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u r h o l d i n g
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 W e affi r m. 1 A s econd -d eg re e felony i s p uni shabl e by

a t er m of i mpri sonment betw een tw o and twe n ty yea rs and a fine not t o ex ceed $10,000

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1 2

. 33 (V e rn o n 20 0 3 ). Myers do e s no t dis p u te th a t h is s e n te n ce f a lls w it h in th e st a tu to ry ran ge all ow abl e for his cr ime. In g ener al, Tex as cour ts hav e hel d that a puni shmentas ses sed
w it hin the sta tutor

y r ang e i s n ot c ru el or

unus ual

. Dav

ila v. State , 930 S.W .2d 6 41, 6 54 (Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 1996, pet. r ef’d) ; Bel ton v . St ate , 900 S.W .2d 886, 899 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Paso 1995, pet. r ef’d) ; Lack ey v. State , 881 S.W .2d 4 18, 4 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, pet. ref ’d). Nevertheless, an Eighth Am end me nt claim may still ex ist ev en if the pu nishm ent is
w it hin the sta tutor

y r ang e. See So lem v. Helm , 463 U. S. 277, 290 ( 1983) ; Mu ll ins v. Sta te , 208 S. W .3 d 4 6 9, 47 0 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) ; Di az-G alv an v . St ate , 942 S.W .2d 185 , 186 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 97, pet. ref ’d). My ers cites Solem v

. He lm and a rg ues tha t his sent ence was d ispropo rtiona te to his
cr ime. See S ole m , 463 U .S. at 29 0- 92. In Solem , the Uni ted Stat es Supr eme C our t s et forth thr ee factors t o c onsider i n ev alu ati ng an E ig hth A mendment di spr opor ti onate puni shmentcl aim: ( 1) the g ra v it y of the c ri me and t he ha rsh ness of the p enal ty ; ( 2) the pu ni s hm en t for ot he r c r i me s i n th e s am e j ur i s di c ti on ; an d ( 3) t he p un i s hm en t for t he s am e
cr ime in other

j ur is dic ti ons. Id. I n Tr evi no v . St ate , w e r ecog niz e d t h a t “t h e v iab il it y and mode of appl ic ati on of pr opor ti onate anal y si s” h a s b een c all ed i nto q uest ion si nce the Supr eme Cour

t’ s spl int er ed deci si on i n Har m eli n v . M ic hig an , 501 U .S. 957 ( 1991)

. See Tr evi no v. St ate , 174 S.W .3d 925, 928 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. r ef’d) ( ci ti ng Mc Gr uder v. Puc ket t , 954 F .2d 3 13, 3 15- 16 (5th Ci r. 1992) ). I n Mc Gr uder v. Puc ket t , t he3

Fi fth Ci rc uitanal y z ed Harm elin , and conclud ed th at courts mu st “initially make a thresh old compar is on of the g ra v it y of [the] of

fenses ag ain st the sev er it y of [t he] s entenc e.” 954 F .2d
a t 3 1 6

. “O n ly i f

we in f e r t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e i s g ro s s ly d is p ro p o rt io n a t e t o t h e o f f e n s e wil l we then cons ide r the r emaini ng factor s o f the S o le m tes t and co mpare the sent ence re cei v ed to ( 1) s en te nc es for

s i mi l ar c r i me s i n th e s am e j ur i s di c ti on a nd ( 2) s en te nc es for t he s am e crime in oth er jurisdictions.” Id. I n S u l l i v a n v . State , we ass umed the v iab il it y of pr opor ti onal it y r ev iew and appl ied both S o le m and McGruder. See S ull iv an v
. State , 975 S.W .2d 7 55, 7 57- 58 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1998, no p et.)

. Ass uming the same h er e, un der both S o le m and Mc Gr

uder , w e must loo k firs t at t he g ra v it y of the o ff ense and t he harshnes s o f the penal ty

. Solem , 463 U .S. at 29 0- 91; Mc Gr uder , 954 F .2d a t 316

. Next, w e mustl ook a t the sente nces i mposed for s imi lar
cr imes i n the sa me j ur isd icti on and the s entenc es impos ed for the s ame cr ime in other jur is dic ti ons. Solem , 463 U .S. at 29 2; Mc Gr uder , 954 F .2d a t 316

. My er s a rg ues that his se ntenc e i s e x ces si v e because (1) he sol ic it ed a pol ic e off ic er posi ng as a t hir

teen- y ear -o ld g ir l, thus the cr ime caus ed no har m to a ny per son or

to the publ ic ; ( 2) defense w it ness es est abl ish e d t h a t he needed re habi li tati on r ather than inc ar cer ati on and that he c oul d s ucc ess fully co mplet e c ommunit y

su per v is ion ; ( 3) he h as chi ldr en, a n d n o c o mp l a i n t s h a v e b e e n m a d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c h i l d r e n ; a n d ( 4 ) he
ex pr ess ed r emors e for his ac ti ons. In c onsi der ing th e gra vity of the cr ime and t he harshnes s o f the penal ty , w e not e that w hether

the cr ime w as dir ect ed to w ar ds a thi rt e e n -y ear -o ld chi ld or a po li ce off ic er posin g as a thirte en-year-old child , t h e c ri m e of online solicitation of

a mino r is a v ery
ser iou s o f

f ense. F urther more, M y er s i g nor es the e v ide nce in the r ecor d demons tr ati ng that, as a juv eni le, he w as adj udi cat ed as g uil ty of tw o off enses of ag g ra vat e d se x ual4

ass aul t of a chi ld under fourteen y ear s of ag e and re manded t o the cu sto dy of the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 021 (a)(ii i) (Verno n Sup p
. 2 0 0 8 ); Si m m ons v. State , 944 S.W .2d 1 1, 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1996, no p et.)

. In t he pr esent
c a s e , t h e p u n is h m e n t wa s wit h in t h e st a t u t o ry r a n ge , a n d gi ve n Mye rs ’s cr im in a l h is t o ry,
w e ar e l oathe to say

that the punishmentw as g ro ss ly dispr opor

ti onate to the c ri me. See Si m m ons , 944 S.W .2d at 15 (“ Appel lan t does not take i nto c onsi der ati on th e fact that he also h a d a 1 991 c onv ic ti on for poss ess ion of a c ontr oll ed s ubst ance. The pu nis hment
ass ess ed fall s w it hin the per mis si ble ra ng e, and w hen v iew ed in li g ht of Appel lan t’ s c ri minal his tor y , i s n ot g ro ss ly

di spr opor

ti onate to t he off ense he commi tted. ”)

. Ev en i f w e w er e to
c o n c l u d e t h a t M y e r s s a t i s fi e d t h e fi r s t r e q u i r e me n t o f S o le m and M cGr uder, M y er s d oes not a ddr ess , and ther e i s n o ev ide nce in the a ppel lat e r ecor d of, the se ntenc es impos ed for s imi lar cr imes in Tex as or for the same cr imes in other jur is dic ti ons. Thus, w e maynot p e rf o r m a c o m p a ra ti ve e valu a ti o n us in g th e rem a in in g S o le m factors. See Solem , 463 U. S. a t 292 ; Gui

n v . St ate , 209 S.W .3d 682 , 687 -88 ( T ex. App .–T exarkana 20 06, no pe t.); Sul li van , 975 S.W .2d a t 757 -5 8; Si m m ons , 944 S.W .2d a t 15. Ac cor din g ly , w e c oncl ude that My er s’ s s entenc e i s n eit her g ro ss ly dis pr opor ti onate nor

cr uel and unusu al. The i ss ue i s o v er r ul ed , an d w e affi r m.

GIN A M . BE NA VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 28t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.