Court Opinion

ID: 9918479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 11:10:34.061766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:43.033312
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00220-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

TERRY LEE DAVIS, SR.,                          §      APPEAL FROM THE 87TH
APPELLANT

V.                                             §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §      ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Terry Lee Davis, Sr., appeals his sentence for possession of a controlled
substance. In his sole issue, he alleges that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the
crime committed. We affirm.

                                        BACKGROUND
       Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the offense of possession of a controlled substance in
penalty group 1, in an amount of more than 4 grams but less than 200 grams. Following trial, the
jury found Appellant “guilty” of the offense. Appellant pleaded “true” to one enhancement,
alleging a previous felony conviction. The jury found the enhancement to be “true,” and
imposed a sentence of fifty years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.

                              CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
       In his sole issue, Appellant argues that his sentence of fifty years’ imprisonment amounts
to cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution and the Texas
Constitution. Appellant contends that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his conduct in
committing the offense and that the jury should have imposed a shorter sentence.
       Before a complaint may be presented for appellate review, the record must show that
Appellant raised the complaint to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion. TEX.
R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); see Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet.
ref’d). A complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment may be preserved by objecting at the punishment hearing, or when the sentence is
pronounced. Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Kim, 283 S.W.3d at
475. An appellant may raise a sentencing issue for the first time in a motion for new trial only if
he did not have an opportunity to object when the sentence was imposed. Burt, 396 S.W.3d at
577 n.4. In this case, the record does not show that Appellant objected when the sentence was
imposed at trial, and he does not assert that he lacked an opportunity to raise such an objection.
Therefore, it appears that Appellant did not properly preserve error on this issue. However,
assuming arguendo that Appellant did preserve this complaint for appellate review, we cannot
grant him relief because his sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
       The United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. CONST. amend.
VIII. This provision was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Similarly, the Texas Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.” TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 13.
The difference between the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual” phrasing and the Texas
Constitution’s “cruel or unusual” phrasing is insignificant. Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 645
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
       The legislature is vested with the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties. See
Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d); see also Simmons
v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d). Courts have repeatedly held
that punishment which falls within the limits prescribed by a valid statute is not excessive, cruel,
or unusual. See Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Jordan v. State,
495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 664. In this case, Appellant
was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 1, in an amount of more
than 4 grams but less than 200 grams, a second-degree felony with a punishment range from two
to twenty years of imprisonment. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (West 2023);

                                                 2
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West 2023).                       Additionally, the jury’s finding of “true”
regarding Appellant’s previous felony conviction increased the available punishment range to a
minimum of five years’ imprisonment and a maximum of ninety-nine years’ imprisonment, or
life imprisonment, and a fine of no more than $10,000.00. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42(b);
12.32 (West 2023). Thus, the fifty-year sentence imposed by the trial court falls within the range
set forth by the legislature. Therefore, the punishment is not prohibited as cruel, unusual, or
excessive per se. See Harris, 656 S.W.2d at 486; Jordan, 495 S.W.2d at 952; Davis, 905
S.W.2d at 664.
         Nevertheless, Appellant urges this Court to consider the factors originally set forth in
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983). Under this test, the
proportionality of a sentence is evaluated by considering (1) the gravity of the offense and the
harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction,
and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. 1 Id., 463
U.S. at 292, 103 S. Ct. at 3011. The application of the Solem test has been modified by Texas
courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991) to require a
threshold determination that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime before
addressing the remaining elements. See, e.g., McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 849, 113 S. Ct. 146, 121 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1992); see also Jackson v.
State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845–46 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.).
         We are guided by the holding in Rummel v. Estelle in making the threshold
determination of whether Appellant’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime. 445 U.S.
263, 100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed. 2d 382 (1980). In Rummel, the Supreme Court considered the
proportionality claim of an appellant who had received a mandatory life sentence under a prior
version of the Texas habitual offender statute for a conviction of obtaining $120.75 by false
pretenses. See id., 445 U.S. at 266, 100 S. Ct. at 1135. In that case, the appellant received a life
sentence because he had two prior felony convictions—one for fraudulent use of a credit card to
obtain $80.00 worth of goods or services and the other for passing a forged check in the amount

         1
           In his brief, Appellant makes a conclusory statement that his sentence is grossly disproportionate, stating
that other “persons adjudged guilty of the same offense” received “much shorter” sentences. However, he cites to
no authority to support this contention. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (“[t]he brief must contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities...”).

                                                          3
of $28.36. Id., 445 U.S. at 265–66, 100 S. Ct. at 1134–35. After recognizing the legislative
prerogative to classify offenses as felonies and, further, considering the purpose of the habitual
offender statute, the court determined that the appellant’s mandatory life sentence did not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id., 445 U.S. at 284–85, 100 S. Ct. at 1144–45.
         In this case, the offense Appellant committed— possession of a controlled substance— is
no less serious than the combination of offenses committed by the appellant in Rummel, while
Appellant’s sentence is less severe than the life sentence upheld by the Supreme Court in
Rummel.        Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that if the sentence in Rummel is not
unconstitutionally disproportionate, neither is Appellant’s sentence in this case. Because we do
not find that the threshold test is satisfied, we need not apply the remaining elements of the
Solem test. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

                                                  DISPOSITION

         Having overruled Appellant’s issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                 BRIAN HOYLE
                                                                    Justice

Opinion delivered January 10, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          4
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          JANUARY 10, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00220-CR

                                      TERRY LEE DAVIS, SR.,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 87th District Court
                     of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87CR-22-35854)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                    Brian Hoyle, Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.