Jeremy Jermaine Hodge v. State
06-15-00103-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 9, 2015Background
- Jeremy Jermaine Hodge pleaded guilty in 2012 to three state-jail felonies: one burglary of a building and two counts of credit/debit card abuse; under plea bargains he received concurrent 2-year state jail sentences, each probated for 4 years, and he waived appeal rights.
- The State filed motions to revoke Hodge’s community supervision on January 27, 2015, alleging drug possession/use (positive test for marijuana, opiates, benzodiazepine), failure to report, and delinquent community service hours.
- At the revocation hearing, the court found Hodge violated supervision by one positive drug test and four failures to report, revoked probation, and ordered him to serve the previously assessed concurrent two-year state-jail sentences.
- Hodge filed a motion for new trial asserting his two-year sentence is grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment) to the violations; the motion was denied and he appealed the revocation order.
- The State argues (1) abuse-of-discretion review applies and the sentence is within statutory range, bargained-for, and not grossly disproportionate; and (2) Hodge waived/apply-to-appeal punishment at sentencing and thus cannot challenge the punishment now (jurisdictional bar).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hodge) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce the 2-year sentence after revocation | Two-year sentence is grossly disproportionate/constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for technical violations (one positive drug test, missed reports) | Sentence was for the underlying convicted offenses (burglary and card abuse), bargained-for, within statutory range, and not grossly disproportionate; revocation review is abuse-of-discretion standard | Court rejects gross-disproportionality claim (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether Hodge may challenge his sentence on revocation appeal | He may complain that punishment is grossly disproportionate when probation revoked | He waived appellate rights at plea/sentencing; issues about punishment must have been raised at sentencing; appeal from revocation is limited to propriety of revocation; lack of appellate certification defeats jurisdiction | Court finds appeal improper to challenge bargained-for punishment now; dismissal for want of jurisdiction is appropriate if pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (gross-disproportionality review is very limited and rare)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (framework for disproportionality analysis; compare offense gravity to sentence)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (sentences may be unconstitutional if grossly disproportionate; guides threshold analysis)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for probation revocation review)
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requirement that appellate-rights certification be in record for plea-bargained waivers)