Enrique Davila v. State, 05-16-00225-CR

Enrique Davila pleaded guilty (waived jury) to two counts of aggravated robbery; trial court accepted judicial confessions and found him guilty.
Facts: Davila took a car and $15 at gunpoint from one victim, then drove to a second location, pointed a gun and stole a cell phone; he was arrested in the stolen car; the second victim’s SIM card was found on Davila and the gun was found in his driveway.
Davila received concurrent ten-year prison sentences in each case (within the statutory 5–99 year range for a first-degree felony).
After judgment, Davila appealed, arguing: (1) his sentences were grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment / Texas Constitution) and (2) the trial court admitted testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
At trial, Detective Laura Roach testified to information from patrol officers and complainants; defense objected once on hearsay grounds but did not make a Confrontation Clause objection or repeatedly object to specific testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ten-year sentences are grossly disproportionate	Davila: sentence excessive and violates federal/state cruel and unusual punishment	State: sentences are within statutory range and constitutional	Held: Not preserved; even if preserved, within statutory range so not cruel and unusual; affirmed
Whether admission of Detective Roach’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause	Davila: Roach relayed testimonial statements of absent complainants, violating Crawford	State: testimony was admissible and cumulative of other evidence (and objection was only hearsay)	Held: Confrontation claim forfeited by inadequate objection; alternatively, any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (sentence within statutory range does not violate cruel and unusual punishment)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements inadmissible unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (factors for Confrontation Clause harm analysis)
Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Confrontation Clause harmless-error framework)
Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (certain constitutional rights, including Eighth Amendment claims, may be waived)
Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (Confrontation Clause objections must be timely and specific to preserve error)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (distinguishing testimonial business records and confrontation concerns in punishment phase of capital cases)