Jonathan Jeremiah Nunnally v. the State of Texas
03-19-00807-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- In pre-dawn hours, Jonathan Nunnally was found slumped in a parked car; deputy Tabytha Horseman investigated, smelled drugs/alcohol, and roused him.
- After being roused, Nunnally restarted the car, drove off while the deputy held on, actively fought for the wheel, and kicked the deputy, causing bruises; he was tasered and arrested.
- The car contained marijuana and cough syrup; the State indicted for aggravated assault on a public servant (deadly weapon = car).
- Nunnally pleaded guilty to aggravated assault by threat and proceeded to an open punishment hearing; the State waived seeking punishment above 20 years.
- The trial court reviewed testimony and dashcam video, found Nunnally showed 'no regard' for the deputy’s life, and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- Nunnally appealed, arguing the sentence violated Tex. Penal Code § 1.02, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Tex. Const. art. I §§ 13 and 19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment: gross disproportionality | Nunnally: 20 years is grossly disproportionate to his intoxicated, non‑premeditated conduct | State: sentence within statutory 5–99 years and supported by harm, culpability, priors | No gross disproportionality; claim overruled |
| Texas Const. art I §13: gross disproportionality | Nunnally: state constitutional prohibition renders 20 years excessive | State: same as federal—sentence within statutory range and justified by facts | No gross disproportionality under Texas Constitution; claim overruled |
| Federal due process: sentencing bias/refusal to consider mitigation | Nunnally: judge failed to adequately consider mitigation and imposed a predetermined sentence | State: court heard evidence, reviewed exhibits/video, recessed to consider punishment—no bias shown | No due process violation; claim overruled |
| State due-course/due-process: sentencing impartiality | Nunnally: state guaranty of due course of law violated by inadequate consideration of mitigating evidence | State: trial court expressly considered mitigation, reviewed PSI and evidence, and explained reasons | No violation of state due-course rights; claim overruled |
| Tex. Penal Code §1.02: failure to serve legitimate penological goals | Nunnally: retribution/deterrence insufficient here; rehabilitation is the appropriate goal for him | State: sentence furthers deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation given danger posed, prior drug history, and treatment only after incarceration | Court held sentence served §1.02 objectives; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (trial court has wide sentencing discretion)
- Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sentences within statutory range based on informed normative judgment generally unassailable)
- State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (gross‑disproportionality framework for term‑of‑years sentences)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presumption of judge’s neutrality; due process requires neutral sentencing body)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (arbitrary refusal to consider mitigation can violate due process)
- Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (predetermined sentence and failure to consider mitigation violates due process)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (reversal where sentencing was based on no evidence)
- Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (decision what sentence within statutory range is a normative, discretionary function)