Adrian Devonta Ellison v. the State of Texas
05-20-00470-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 4, 2022Background
- Ellison was originally indicted in 2008–2009 for multiple thefts and received deferred-adjudication community supervision after guilty pleas.
- In 2010 he pleaded guilty to burglary; the State moved to revoke supervision but the court continued the deferment.
- In 2019 he pleaded guilty to additional charges: theft of service (≥ $300,000), fraudulent use/possession of identifying information (≥50 items), and forgery of governmental instruments, based on a scheme using false identities to steal cable equipment.
- At the combined adjudication/punishment hearing Ellison and family members testified in mitigation (courses completed in jail; family support); the State presented evidence of the theft scheme.
- The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Ellison: one year jail on the lowest theft charge and burglary (state-jail felonies), ten years on multiple earlier and later felony theft/forgery/ID convictions; sentences run concurrently.
- Ellison appealed, raising three issues: (1) court erred by not holding a separate punishment hearing; (2) Eighth Amendment challenge to alleged grossly disproportionate sentences; (3) same challenge under the Texas Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not conducting a separate punishment hearing after adjudication | Ellison: entitled to separate punishment hearing to present mitigation per Issa/art. 42A.110 | State: error not preserved; mitigation was presented during adjudication | No reversible error — claim forfeited and, in any event, mitigation evidence was presented during adjudication so opportunity requirement satisfied |
| Whether sentences are grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment | Ellison: sentences are grossly disproportionate to his offenses | State: claim not preserved; sentences within statutory ranges and reflect recidivism and brazen schemes | Forfeited on appeal; even on merits no gross disproportionality shown |
| Whether sentences violate Texas Constitution art. I, §13 (cruel or unusual) | Ellison: state constitutional protection renders sentences disproportionate | State: same as federal argument; not preserved; sentences lawful and proportionate given record | Forfeited on appeal; no violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (discusses right to punishment hearing after adjudication)
- Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (right to punishment hearing is statutory and may be waived)
- Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (no absolute right to separate hearing; required opportunity to present mitigation suffices)
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (constitutional rights, including protection from cruel or unusual punishment, may be waived)
- Bell v. State, 326 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (preservation and waiver principles for constitutional claims)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (preservation rules require timely objection or motion for new trial)
- State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (framework for gross-disproportionality review: threshold comparison, then interjurisdictional comparison)
- Alvarez v. State, 525 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017) (recognizes narrow, exceedingly rare Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality exception)
- Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (describes limited nature of proportionality review when sentence is within statutory range)