Jimmy Andrew Davis, Jr. v. State
12-15-00171-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Jimmy Andrew Davis, Jr. was convicted (jury) of manufacturing/delivery of a controlled substance (PG1 <1g) in a drug-free zone and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. Conviction entered March 24, 2015; sentence imposed June 5, 2015. Defendant timely appealed.
- The underlying offense is a third-degree felony; statutory punishment range without enhancements: 2–10 years (plus fines). Prior conviction enhancements expanded the range to 25 years–life, making the 30-year sentence legally within range.
- At sentencing the trial court considered testimony from the punishment trial and other witnesses; the brief challenges only the proportionality of the 30‑year term.
- Appellant’s sole point of error: the 30‑year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.
- Appellant asks the court to vacate the commitment and remand for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 30‑year sentence (within enhanced statutory range) is cruel and unusual because grossly disproportionate | State (implicit) would contend sentence is within statutory range and therefore lawful and for the trial court to exercise discretion at punishment | Davis argues the sentence, though within the enhanced range, is grossly disproportionate to the crime and violates Eighth Amendment and Texas constitutional protections; asks for new punishment hearing | This brief seeks relief; no appellate disposition is contained in the brief. The appellant requests reversal and remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis) (establishes multi‑step proportionality review)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment) (clarifies and limits Solem; courts assess gross disproportionality)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.) (applies Harmelin and describes method: first ask gross disproportionality, then compare to sentences in‑state and out‑of‑state)
- Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App. Texarkana) (Eighth Amendment proportionality review in Texas cases)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Ct. Crim. App.) (Texas criminal appeals discussion of sentencing and proportionality)