Carmina Padroz v. State
13-15-00195-CR
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- In 2000 Carmina Padroz was indicted for possession of marijuana (183 lbs.), a second‑degree felony; she pleaded guilty and received ten years deferred adjudication with placement at a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility.
- Padroz left Texas and traveled to California in 2002 for an intended interstate transfer; she failed to return or report as ordered and signed for certified mail notifying her to appear.
- The State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke probation in July 2002 alleging absconding and other supervision violations.
- On April 15, 2015 Padroz pled true to the alleged violations at a revocation hearing; the trial court adjudicated guilt, revoked community supervision, and sentenced her to six years’ confinement.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there are no non‑frivolous issues for appeal and moved to withdraw, presenting three arguable issues: revocation discretion, proportionality of punishment, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Padroz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community supervision | The State argued Padroz absconded (failed to return/report), pled true to violations, and revocation was supported | Padroz (through counsel) argued probation had effectively ended and sought termination rather than incarceration | Court found no abuse of discretion: pleas of true and evidence supported revocation; revocation within judicial discretion |
| Whether the six‑year sentence was cruel or unusual (Eighth Amendment/proportionality) | The State argued sentence within statutory and plea‑cap range and proportionate given 183 lbs. of marijuana and long absence | Padroz argued punishment excessive given delay/time on supervision (implicit challenge) | Court held sentence not grossly disproportionate; six years within authorized range and not cruel or unusual |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | State contended counsel performed reasonably by challenging for termination and advocating mitigation; no viable defense to proven absconding | Padroz contended (arguable claim) counsel was ineffective (record does not present specific alleged errors) | Court held no viable ineffective‑assistance claim on the record: performance not shown deficient nor prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requirements for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for abuse of discretion in revocation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App.) (revocation review standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles referenced)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (framework for term‑of‑years proportionality analysis)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (comparative proportionality approach)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (proportionality and categorical Eighth Amendment principles)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) (historical articulation of proportionality principle)