Jose Leonardo Rios v. the State of Texas
13-20-00363-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- Rios pleaded guilty to evading arrest with a vehicle (third-degree felony). The trial court imposed a 10-year sentence but suspended it and placed Rios on 3 years' community supervision with conditions (including a $1,000 fine, alcohol/drug evaluation, and 100 hours community service).
- The State filed a motion to revoke supervision alleging six violations, including a separate DWI arrest.
- At the revocation hearing Rios pleaded “true” to the allegations; the court revoked supervision and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
- Rios did not object at sentencing but, after the hearing, newly appointed counsel filed a motion for new trial arguing the sentence was excessive under the Eighth Amendment; the record does not show the trial court was presented with or ruled on that motion.
- Rios appealed, arguing the five-year sentence was excessive; the State responded that the sentence was within the statutory range and the complaint was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error | Rios: filing motion for new trial preserved Eighth Amendment complaint | State: record does not show the trial court was presented with or aware of the motion; no contemporaneous objection at sentencing | Not preserved — filing alone insufficient; no showing of presentment or refusal to rule |
| Excessive punishment (Eighth Amendment) | Rios: five-year term is "overkill" and disproportionate given circumstances | State: sentence falls within statutory range for a third-degree felony and is therefore presumptively valid | Overruled — five-year sentence within statutory range; no showing of gross disproportionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation requires objection at punishment hearing or announcement of sentence)
- Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (filing a motion for new trial alone does not show presentment to the trial court)
- Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (motion for new trial can preserve error when appellant lacked opportunity to object at hearing)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing punishment assessments)
- State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Eighth Amendment proportionality review very narrow; gross disproportionality required)