Joshua Gilbert Bonilla v. State
11-14-00138-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 21, 2015Background
- Joshua Gilbert Bonilla pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault of a child (Penal Code §22.011(a)(2)(A)).
- Trial court deferred adjudication, placed Bonilla on 7 years' community supervision, and assessed a $500 fine.
- State later moved to revoke supervision alleging Bonilla entered two "zero-tolerance red zones" (a school and Gatti’s Pizza), failed to perform community service, and failed to maintain employment; the employment allegation was abandoned.
- At the revocation hearing Bonilla pleaded "true" to entering the two red zones and to failing to complete community service; his community supervision officer testified about multiple violations and that community service was not verified.
- The trial court found the allegations true, revoked community supervision, adjudicated Bonilla guilty on all four counts, and sentenced him to 11 years' confinement on each count to run concurrently.
- Bonilla appealed, arguing his 11-year concurrent sentences are grossly disproportionate and constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, the Texas Constitution, and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 1.09.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonilla's 11-year concurrent sentences are cruel and unusual because grossly disproportionate | Bonilla: 11 years is grossly disproportionate to the offense and violates Eighth Amendment and state protections | State: Sentence is within statutory range for second-degree felonies and not grossly disproportionate given offense facts | Court: Sentence is within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate; challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (proportionality framework for Eighth Amendment challenges)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (deference to legislatively prescribed sentencing ranges)
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Texas view that sentences within statutory range are ordinarily not cruel or unusual)
- Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797 (applying Solem factors and Texas precedent on proportionality)
- Alvarez v. State, 63 S.W.3d 578 (consideration of harm to victim and society in proportionality analysis)