Contreras v. State
369 S.W.3d 689
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Gerardo Contreras was charged by separate indictments with third‑degree felony driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident involving injury.
- He pled guilty in each case; the matter proceeded to a punishment trial.
- The trial court found him guilty on both charges and sentenced nine years for DWI and five years for leaving the scene.
- Appellant challenged the sentences as cruel and unusual punishment on appeal.
- The court addressed preservation and merits of the claim under applicable law.
- Statutory ranges: DWI third degree 2–10 years; leaving scene up to 5 years; sentences fall within these ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentences are cruel and unusual punishment. | Contreras contends the sentences are cruel and unusual. | State argues sentences fall within statutory ranges and are not per se cruel. | Not cruel or unusual; preservation not raised; and merits fail. |
| Whether the sentences are grossly disproportionate under Solem v. Helm. | Contreras seeks proportionality review under Solem. | State contends a threshold gross disproportionality test is not satisfied. | Threshold test not met; no further Solem analysis required; sentences affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (forfeiture of rights under U.S. Constitution for failure to timely object)
- Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995) (legislative power to define crimes and penalties)
- Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.App.BTyler 1996) (citation on penalty standards)
- Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (punishment within statutory limits not cruel or unusual)
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (review of punishment within statutory parameters)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (gross disproportionality review framework for extreme sentences)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (proportionality analysis components and threshold inquiry)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1992) (threshold gross disproportionality consideration post-Harmelin)
- Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999) (proportionality analysis in Texas context)
- Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995) ((duplicate entry above))
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (outlined proportionality considerations)