Julian Alejandro Andrade v. the State of Texas, 02-23-00214-CR

Julian Alejandro Andrade was placed on five years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to two serious drug offenses involving THC and marijuana, with deadly weapon findings.
Shortly after being sentenced to probation, Andrade committed another drug offense and committed multiple violations of his probation terms, including new criminal charges, positive drug tests, and failing to appear in court.
The State filed a sixth amended petition to proceed to adjudication based on thirteen probation violations.
Andrade pleaded guilty to three drug offenses and true to most probation violations; after a hearing, the court adjudicated guilt and imposed sentences of 50 years (with $50,000 fine), 75 years (with $10,000 fine), and 10 years (with $10,000 fine) across the cases at issue.
Andrade appealed, arguing (1) error in not ordering a presentence investigation (PSI) report and (2) that his 50- and 75-year sentences were grossly disproportionate compared to similar offenses.
The trial court denied his motions for new trial and the appellate court considered his claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to order a presentence investigation (PSI) report	Trial court erred by not ordering a PSI; lack of PSI prejudiced sentencing	Andrade did not preserve error; no substantial rights affected	Andrade forfeited this issue and, alternatively, no harm shown; issue overruled
Disproportionate sentences as cruel and unusual punishment	50- and 75-year sentences are grossly disproportionate to his offenses	Sentences within statutory range, justified by aggravating factors	Sentences not grossly disproportionate; within range; cruel and unusual claim fails
Correction of judgment regarding fines	Judgment incorrectly stated lower fine than orally pronounced	Correction should reflect actual fine imposed	Judgment modified to reflect $50,000 orally pronounced fine; affirmed as modified

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (Supreme Court 2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits grossly disproportionate noncapital punishment)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Supreme Court 1991) (sets framework for gross disproportionality analysis under Eighth Amendment)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court 1983) (articulates comparative steps in disproportionality review)
State v. Simpson, 488 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (emphasizes rarity of finding gross disproportionality under Eighth Amendment)
Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial courts have broad discretion for punishment within statutory limits)
White v. State, 495 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (upholding long sentences for drug offenses as constitutional under Eighth Amendment)