Jason Lee Killian v. State, 08-15-00062-CR

Killian pled guilty (March 26, 2013) to assault on a public servant (third-degree felony); court deferred adjudication and placed him on five years' community supervision with mental-health and substance-abuse conditions.
Supervision was modified after methamphetamine use to require urinalysis, four days in jail, and completion of the state's most intensive substance-abuse program (SAFP) plus a 90-day halfway-house stay and one-year aftercare.
Killian completed the residential SAFP portion (Nov 19, 2013–Aug 13, 2014) and entered Abode (halfway house); after 30–45 days he became noncompliant (refused meds, stayed in bed ≈15 days) and refused to sign a behavior contract, leading to discharge from Abode.
The State moved to adjudicate; Killian pled true to the revocation allegations. At revocation hearing the court adjudicated guilt and orally sentenced Killian to eight years’ confinement; the written judgment erroneously added a $1,000 fine.
The record shows long-standing mental-health diagnoses (paranoia/schizophrenia), substance abuse, prior hospitalizations, seizures, and functional limitations, but also shows he completed the SAFP residential program and part of Abode.

Issue	Killian's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether eight-year sentence is cruel and unusual (gross disproportionality)	Sentence is grossly disproportionate given his mental illness and conduct	Sentence is within statutory range and issue is forfeited for failure to object below; on merits not grossly disproportionate	Forfeiture rule applies; on merits court finds sentence not grossly disproportionate and overrules point
Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke community supervision	Mental incapacity prevented completion of program; thus revocation lacked sufficient proof	Killian pled true; probation officer testified to noncompliance and discharge; plea/ testimony suffice	Plea of true plus testimony provides sufficient evidence; revocation affirmed
Whether written $1,000 fine may stand though not orally pronounced	Written judgment improperly imposes a fine not orally pronounced	State concedes conflict; oral pronouncement controls	Court sustains and reforms judgment to delete the $1,000 fine

Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (state/federal Eighth Amendment protections compared)
Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (gross-disproportionality claim is "exceedingly rare")
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (proportionality principle under Eighth Amendment)
Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1910) (punishment must be graduated and proportioned)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (three-factor proportionality test)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (Kennedy concurrence framing threshold inquiry for Solem factors)
McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1992) (adopts Kennedy’s modified Solem approach)
Garza v. State, 435 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (distinguishes forfeiture for certain Eighth Amendment/Miller-type challenges)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (framework on rights waiver/forfeiture)
Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (plea of true can constitute sufficient evidence to support enhancement/revocation)
Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (sufficiency cannot be challenged after plea of true)
Mitchell v. State, 482 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (revocation hearing may be unnecessary when defendant pleads true)