Joseph Anthony Johnson v. the State of Texas, 07-20-00053-CR

Joseph Anthony Johnson pleaded guilty in Feb 2019 to two counts of sexual assault of a child (victim: 15-year-old) and pleaded "true" to a prior felony burglary enhancement; adjudication was deferred and he received 8 years community supervision.
State moved to adjudicate guilt after multiple supervision violations; evidentiary hearing produced testimony from two supervision officers and a sex-offender counselor documenting numerous probation breaches and disruptive/ threatening conduct in treatment leading to expulsion.
Specific supervision violations included missed monthly reports, unpaid fees/payments, incomplete community service (4/100 hours), failure/expulsion from sex-offender counseling, and other noncompliance; counselor testified Johnson showed no remorse and threatened another participant.
Trial court found the State's witnesses credible, adjudicated Johnson guilty on both counts, revoked probation, and sentenced him to two consecutive 75-year terms (enhanced to first-degree range) plus a $2,500 fine.
On appeal Johnson raised eight points: mainly (1) that revocation was an abuse of discretion, (2) that consecutive 75-year sentences were grossly disproportionate (cruel and unusual), and (3) that the judgments incorrectly labeled the offense degree; the court affirmed revocation and sentences but reformed the judgments to reflect convictions were second-degree felonies punished as first-degree.

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in revoking community supervision	Preponderance of evidence showed multiple supervision violations; witnesses credible	Revocation lacked sufficient proof / trial court abused discretion	No abuse: evidence sufficiently proved violations; revocation/adjudication affirmed
Whether consecutive 75-year sentences are grossly disproportionate (Cruel & Unusual)	Sentences within statutory range (enhanced to first-degree); record (serious harm, offender culpability, long criminal history, absconding/assault) supports severity	Sentences are excessive and violate Eighth Amendment	Overruled: sentences fall within statutory range and are not grossly disproportionate
Whether judgments correctly state degree of offense	Judgment should reflect record; State concedes error	Johnson argued the judgments mischaracterized offense degree	Agree: judgments reformed to show convictions are second-degree felonies punished as first-degree

Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (limits on Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality review and deference to legislatively prescribed ranges)
Ramirez v. State, 336 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (appellate authority to reform judgments to reflect the record)
Oliva v. State, 548 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (distinguishing offense degree from punishment enhancement)