Emelio Palacio v. State
05-14-00150-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 27, 2015Background
- In June 2013 Emelio Palacio waived a jury, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and received deferred adjudication for eight years and a $1,000 fine.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging multiple supervision violations including an October 2013 possession of methamphetamine arrest.
- At the adjudication hearing Palacio pleaded true to the allegations; the trial court adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment.
- At the same hearing Palacio waived a jury, pleaded guilty to possession of 1–4 grams of methamphetamine, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
- Palacio appealed, arguing (1) he was denied a separate punishment hearing after adjudication and (2) his sentences are grossly disproportionate and inappropriate under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palacio was denied a separate punishment hearing after adjudication | Palacio: trial court failed to allow a separate post-adjudication punishment hearing | State: issue waived; trial court properly considered punishment and Palacio presented mitigation evidence | Court: Right to separate punishment hearing can be waived; Palacio failed to preserve complaint and did present punishment evidence — overruled |
| Whether the sentences are grossly disproportionate under the U.S. Constitution | Palacio: sentences excessive; he has serious drug addiction and needs treatment, not incarceration | State: issue not preserved; sentences are within statutory ranges and proper exercise of discretion | Court: Issue not preserved; sentences within statutory ranges are not cruel or unusual — overruled |
| Whether the sentences are inappropriate under the Texas Constitution / state law | Palacio: rehabilitation would be more appropriate given lack of violence history and drug problem | State: Palacio admitted robbing victim at gunpoint; trial court discretion appropriate | Court: Sentences within statutory limits; trial court acted within discretion — overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (right to post-adjudication punishment hearing exists but may be waived)
- Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (presentation of punishment evidence can satisfy right to punishment hearing)
- Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (sentence within statutory range is not excessive or cruel and unusual)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (same principle regarding punishment within statutory range)