James Craig Cooper v. the State of Texas
11-19-00225-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background:
- Appellant James Craig Cooper pleaded guilty (waived jury) to state-jail felony possession of cocaine (<1 gram).
- Officer observed Cooper in a known drug area, stopped him for a traffic violation, and found two rocks that tested positive for cocaine.
- At punishment Cooper testified about sobriety, work as a body-shop manager, and witnesses urged community supervision; trial court sentenced him to 18 months in state jail.
- Cooper filed a motion for new trial claiming the sentence was grossly disproportionate; a bench warrant was issued for a scheduled hearing but no hearing occurred and the motion was overruled by operation of law.
- The court considered Cooper's prior criminal history (deferred adjudication for indecency with a child, later adjudicated with a 6-year sentence involving cocaine allegations) as relevant to punishment.
Issues:
| Issue | Cooper's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Cooper's motion for new trial | Cooper: needed a hearing to develop evidence that his 18-month state-jail sentence was grossly disproportionate compared with typical local sentences | State: motion lacked supporting affidavits and the record alone shows no gross disproportionality; hearing not required | Court: No abuse of discretion; Cooper failed to provide affidavit or reasonable grounds and the issue was determinable from the record |
| Whether Cooper's 18-month sentence constituted cruel and unusual (grossly disproportionate) punishment | Cooper: possession of <1 gram harmed only himself; 18 months is excessive compared to similar offenses | State: sentence is within statutory range and justified by Cooper's culpability and prior criminal history | Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate; within statutory range and supported by offender culpability and prior record |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (successful noncapital proportionality challenges are exceedingly rare)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (deference where sentence falls within statutory range)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (gross disproportionality reserved for extraordinary cases)
- State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App.) (three-factor proportionality inquiry: harm, culpability, offender history)
- Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (comparative analysis only after threshold disproportionality showing)
- Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (affidavit requirement to obtain a new-trial hearing on matters not in the record)
- Bahm v. State, 219 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (motion-alone without affidavit insufficient to require hearing)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard of review for denial of new-trial hearing: abuse of discretion)