in the Matter of P. D. W., a Juvenile, 12-17-00197-CV

Juvenile P.D.W. was adjudicated for conduct amounting to attempted sexual assault (grabbing and pinning his mother, stating he wanted sex, threats); conduct could be a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.
Trial court initially placed him on probation until age 18 and committed him to G4S Youth Services; he was discharged unsuccessfully after ~11 months.
The State moved to modify disposition; P.D.W. was placed at Grayson County Bootcamp Sex Offender Program and was unsuccessfully discharged after ~8 months.
Following a second modification hearing, the trial court found probation violations and committed P.D.W. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) until his 18th birthday (about seven months).
The modification hearing produced evidence of repeated sexualized and assaultive conduct across years, prior treatment since age four, rule violations and disrespect at residential programs, and the court’s findings that commitment was needed for rehabilitation and public protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commitment to TJJD constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (grossly disproportionate)	P.D.W.: disposition is grossly disproportionate to offense and not in his best interest	State: issue forfeited for appeal because no timely objection in trial court; alternatively disposition authorized by statute and not disproportionate	Court: forfeiture; on merits, disposition not grossly disproportionate and not an abuse of discretion — affirmed

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (established proportionality test factors)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (clarified threshold proportionality analysis)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (upheld severe sentence under habitual-offender scheme; used for proportionality comparison)
McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.) (discusses modified application of Solem after Harmelin)
In re J.P., 136 S.W.3d 629 (Tex.) (juvenile-justice code permits commitment after probation violation; review for abuse of discretion)
Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Eighth Amendment applied to states via due process)
Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure to object forfeits Eighth Amendment claim)
Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App.) (punishment within statutory limits is not cruel or unusual)
Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (discusses proportionality review approach)
Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (legislature may define penalties; sentences within statutory bounds presumed constitutional)