Court Opinion

ID: 9404741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 19:11:00.22485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.662098
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00440-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOSHUA POWELL,                                                              Appellant,

                                               v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

                   On appeal from the 347th District Court
                         of Nueces County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
      Appellant Joshua Powell was charged with attempted capital murder, a first-degree

felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.03, 12.31, 12.32(a), 15.01(d). Powell pleaded

guilty pursuant to an open plea, and following a jury trial on punishment, a jury assessed

life imprisonment. By a single issue, Powell asserts his sentence is grossly
disproportionate and in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S.

CONST. amends. VIII, XIV. We affirm.

                                   I.     BACKGROUND

       On August 4, 2021, following complaints of a possible domestic disturbance,

Corpus Christi Police Department Officer Manuel Dominguez was dispatched to an

apartment where Powell resided with his mother Olga Robles, his girlfriend Annabelle

Uballe, and their three young children. Robles greeted Officer Dominguez and notified

him that Powell had retreated to his bedroom, which Powell shared with Uballe and their

children.

       According to Uballe, while Officer Dominguez was outside speaking to Robles,

Powell retrieved his .22 caliber pistol from a nearby dresser drawer and told her “if a cop

came in . . . he would shoot.” Officer Dominguez knocked on the bedroom door,

identifying himself and requesting to speak with Powell. Shortly thereafter, the door

opened, Powell removed his gun from his waistband, and began shooting. Uballe grabbed

their three children and shielded them on the floor.

       Powell shot Officer Dominguez a total of eleven times, striking Officer Dominguez’s

face, arm, chest, and back of the head. Officer Dominguez testified that after he was shot,

he stumbled towards the kitchen, where he collapsed. As Officer Dominguez attempted

to “crawl out” of the residence, Powell followed him. “I was thinking maybe he would try

to run or something to that effect. But he followed me and kept on shooting me and

shooting me,” testified Officer Dominguez. At one point, Powell began hitting Officer

Dominguez with the gun itself. The entire exchange was captured on Officer Dominguez’s

                                            2
body cam—including periods of time which Officer Dominguez had no recollection of,

such as, radioing for backup and advising dispatch that he had been shot. Police arrived

to find Officer Dominguez in the living room, bleeding profusely; his right eye was bulging

from its socket. Powell fled and was later apprehended.

      Prior to trial, Powell acknowledged that he understood that the range of

punishment for the offense of attempted capital murder is confinement for no less than

five years and no more than ninety-nine years or life. Having acknowledged this, Powell

pleaded guilty to attempted capital murder. The jury assessed punishment at life, and no

objection related to excessive or disproportionate sentencing was raised. This appeal

followed.

                                   II.    PUNISHMENT

      An allegation of excessive or disproportionate punishment is a legal claim

“embodied in the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment” and based on a

“narrow principle that does not require strict proportionality between the crime and the

sentence.” State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318, 322–24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)); see U.S.

CONST. amend. VIII (“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”); see also Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d

189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment is applicable

to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (citing Robinson v. California, 370

U.S. 660, 666–67 (1962))). A successful challenge to proportionality is exceedingly rare

and requires a finding of “gross disproportionality.” Simpson, 488 S.W.3d at 322–23

                                            3
(citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003)); Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925,

928 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2005, pet. ref’d).

        However, to preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly

disproportionate or cruel and unusual, a defendant must present to the trial court a “timely

request, objection, or motion” stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1(a); see Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“It is

well settled that almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived by the

failure to object.”); Toledo v. State, 519 S.W.3d 273, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2017, pet. ref’d) (concluding defendant had failed to preserve disproportionate-

sentencing complaint); see also Ware v. State, No. 05-22-00303-CR, 2023 WL 3070938,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 25, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(concluding same where appellant was convicted to a term of life imprisonment for a

nonviolent offense).

        At no time prior to this appeal did Powell argue that the sentence imposed was

disproportionate to the offense charged or in violation of his constitutional rights. 1

Accordingly, Powell failed to preserve his complaint for review. See TEX. R. APP. P.

33.1(a); Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928; see generally Wood v. State, 560 S.W.3d 162, 168

        1 During the pendency of this appeal, Powell filed a pro se letter entitled “Motion to Abate the
Appeal for an Out of Time Motion for New Trial.” However, Powell is represented by counsel on appeal,
and he is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2004) (reaffirming appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation on appeal); see also
Benson v. State, No. 13-19-00519-CR, 2021 WL 4202150, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept.
16, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). Therefore, we do not address his
pro se motion. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“We have received
numerous documents from applicant himself, but applicant is represented by counsel and is not entitled to
hybrid representation. . . . Because applicant is represented by counsel, we disregard his numerous pro se
submissions and take no action on them.”) (citations omitted).
                                                    4
(Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“Appellant’s life sentence, which falls within the punishment range

for attempted capital murder, is not an illegal sentence.”); Cisneros v. State, 622 S.W.3d

511, 521 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2021, no pet.) (holding appellant’s

consecutive ninety-nine-year prison sentences for continuous sexual abuse did not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment). We overrule Powell’s sole issue.

                                   III.   CONCLUSION

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                              CLARISSA SILVA
                                                              Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
22nd day of June, 2023.

                                               5