Ham v. State
355 S.W.3d 819
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Ham was convicted of murder by a Hall County jury and sentenced to 99 years’ confinement.
- Appellant challenges pertain to voir dire record-keeping, specifically whether challenges for cause were recorded/transcribed.
- Evidence shows Randell was shot three times at the Davis residence after socializing and drinking; Ham was highly intoxicated.
- Ham made statements at the scene indicating he acted in anger and had “taken care of the problem.”
- The court rejected the alleged record deficiencies and addressed proportionality of the sentence, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire record was properly preserved regarding challenges for cause. | Ham argues the reporter omitted challenges for cause. | Ham contends the missing record prejudices review. | Issue overruled; record deficiencies unpreserved and nonprejudicial. |
| Whether appellate counsel was constructively denied effective assistance due to reporting policies. | Ham claims reporting policy prevented full appellate record, implying prejudice. | State bears no responsibility for this claimed policy; record shows no formal policy error. | Issue overruled; no demonstrable record of policy denial per se. |
| Whether the 99-year murder sentence is constitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. | Ham asserts the sentence is grossly disproportionate given intoxication and conduct. | Sentence falls within statutory range and is not grossly disproportionate under Solem factors; within precedent. | Issue overruled; sentence not unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (error preservation in trial-to-appeal context)
- Davis v. State, 345 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (courts failure to record; review guidance)
- Acosta v. State, 522 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (recording obligations of court reporter)
- Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (preservation and review considerations in proportionality context)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S.1983) (three-factor framework for proportionality review)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.1992) (Eighth Amendment proportionality requires rare, extreme cases)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S.2003) (gross disproportionality standard)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S.2003) (extremely narrow scope of proportionality review)
- Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (proportionality review considerations)
- Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2008) (contextual proportionality analysis)