Jeremy Jermaine Hodge v. State
06-15-00101-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- Jeremy Jermaine Hodge pled guilty in 2012 to state‑jail felony burglary; sentence of 2 years and $10,000 fine was suspended and he received four years’ community supervision.
- He also pled guilty in two companion cases to credit card abuse; identical suspended sentences and supervision were imposed.
- In early 2015 the trial court revoked Hodge’s community supervision and imposed the previously suspended 24‑month state jail sentences (concurrent), with credit for time served and dismissal of remaining fines.
- Hodge does not contest the revocation itself; he appeals only arguing the sentence is grossly disproportionate to his technical supervision violations.
- The State and the court treat the sentence as punishment for the original conviction (imposed at the 2012 plea hearing), not as punishment for the revocation; Hodge did not timely appeal punishment in 2012.
- The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because challenges to punishment must be raised when community supervision is imposed, and an appeal from revocation is generally limited to the propriety of revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may review claim that sentence after revocation is grossly disproportionate to supervision violations | Hodge: sentence is grossly disproportionate given only technical supervision violations | State: sentence is punishment for underlying crime; challenge to punishment had to be made when supervision was imposed; appellate jurisdiction is limited | Court: lacks jurisdiction — appeal from revocation is limited to propriety of revocation; punishment claim should have been raised at time of original conviction/suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (statutory nature and limits of the right to appeal)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (legislature may limit appellate jurisdiction)
- Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (appeal from probation revocation limited to propriety of revocation)
- King v. State, 161 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (defendant may not raise certain attacks on original conviction in revocation appeal)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (framework for gross‑disproportionality Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sentence outside statutory range is void and may be challenged anytime)
- Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (methodology for assessing grossly disproportionate punishment)