Kenneth Dwayne Ghant v. State
11-14-00021-CR
Tex. App.Dec 31, 2015Background
- Appellant Kenneth Dwayne Ghant and his cousin robbed two men at gunpoint, forcing them to drive to a cleaners to obtain more cash; Ghant fled the scene and was later arrested and indicted for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
- Indictment included an enhancement alleging a prior tampering-with-evidence conviction; Ghant pleaded guilty and pleaded true to the enhancement.
- Trial court deferred adjudication, placed Ghant on 10 years deferred-adjudication community supervision, and fined him $1,000 under a plea agreement.
- The State later filed motions to adjudicate; after one amended motion alleging failure to report and fleeing from an officer, Ghant pleaded true to the allegations and the court found them true and ordered a presentence investigation.
- Following the PSI, the trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated Ghant guilty of aggravated robbery, found the deadly-weapon and enhancement allegations true, and sentenced him to 25 years confinement and a $1,000 fine.
- Ghant appealed, arguing (1) his sentence was grossly disproportionate/cruel and unusual and (2) the evidence was factually insufficient to support the 25-year sentence with a deadly-weapon finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether factual-sufficiency review applies to punishment assessment | Ghant: sentence unsupported by evidence (factual insufficiency) | State: factual-sufficiency review inappropriate on punishment issue | Court: declines factual-sufficiency review; overrules point |
| Whether 25-year sentence with deadly-weapon finding is grossly disproportionate/cruel and unusual | Ghant: sentence grossly disproportionate and cruel and unusual | State: sentence within statutory range given offense and enhancement | Court: sentence within statutory range; not grossly disproportionate; overrules point |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality framework)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (sentences within statutory range generally not grossly disproportionate)
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (same principle regarding statutory-range sentences)
- Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (punishment sufficiency review guidance)
- Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1996) (punishment sufficiency review guidance)