Joe Anthony Alvarez v. State, 525 S.W.3d 890

Appellant Joe Anthony Alvarez pleaded guilty under a charge-bargain to possession with intent to deliver 42 grams of methamphetamine (first-degree felony); three other charges were to be dismissed after sentencing.
At disposition the court considered a presentence investigation and heard testimony about concurrent offenses: burglary of a habitation (with owner and child present), forgery, and family-violence assault.
Evidence showed Appellant’s repeated methamphetamine use, prior convictions (marijuana possession, disorderly conduct, prohibited weapons), prior community-supervision revocation for positive drug tests, and continued reoffending and violent/belligerent behavior.
Police found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s glove compartment during a traffic stop, plus multiple cell phones and numerous small baggies; Appellant admitted meth use at arrest and earlier incidents.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to 40 years’ confinement (within statutory range for a first-degree felony) and he appealed claiming the sentence was cruel and unusual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge to a 40-year sentence	Alvarez: 40 years violates evolving standards of decency; sentence grossly disproportionate given no physical injury and nature of offense	State: Sentence is within statutory range and justified by Alvarez’s criminal history and dangerous conduct	Court: Overruled — claim forfeited for failure to object at trial; alternatively, sentence not grossly disproportionate given offense seriousness and prior conduct

Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court afforded wide discretion in sentencing review)
State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (sentences within statutory range generally are not excessive)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Eighth Amendment prohibits grossly disproportionate sentences)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (outside capital cases, successful proportionality challenges are rare)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (supporting rarity of successful proportionality claims)
Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (discussing gross-disproportionality standard under Eighth Amendment)
Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (Eighth Amendment objections forfeited if not raised at trial)
Sneed v. State, 406 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013) (possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine is a serious offense)