Jeremy Jermaine Hodge v. State
06-15-00103-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Sep 9, 2015Background
- Jeremy Jermaine Hodge was placed on 4-year community supervision for three state‑jail felonies (one burglary, two credit/debit card abuse) after June 27, 2012 convictions; each underlying sentence exposure was up to 2 years.
- In Jan. 2015 the State filed motions to revoke supervision alleging (inter alia) a new offense, a positive drug test (Dec. 29, 2014), failures to report in four months across a ~30‑month period, and failure to complete community service.
- Revocation proceedings were held Feb.–Mar. 2015; the trial court found Hodge violated the drug‑testing and reporting conditions but declined to treat the allegedly new offense as a proven violation.
- The trial court revoked community supervision and imposed concurrent state‑jail sentences of 24 months on each count (the statutory maximum).
- At a post‑revocation hearing the defense introduced evidence showing many recent Panola County state‑jail revocations resulted in lesser terms (frequently 18 months) for similar or more serious violations; the trial court denied motion for new trial and Hodge appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 24‑month sentence following revocation is grossly disproportionate to the violations | Hodge: revocation rested only on two technical violations (one positive drug test and four missed monthly reports over ~30 months); 24 months (maximum) is grossly disproportionate given minimal gravity and county practice of lesser sentences | State: sentence is within statutory range for state‑jail felonies and courts routinely uphold within‑range punishments as not grossly disproportionate | Trial court revoked probation and imposed 24‑month concurrent state‑jail sentences; appellant preserves his claim on appeal seeking reversal for gross disproportionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (analysis for Eighth Amendment disproportionality involves comparing gravity of offense to harshness of penalty)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (first‑step comparison may preclude further interstate comparisons absent an initial inference of disproportionality)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1992) (applicability of proportionality framework in federal circuits)
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (punishment within statutory range generally upheld absent constitutional disproportionality)