LaDarius DaShun Hicks v. State
415 S.W.3d 587
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant (Hicks) pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (a baseball bat); trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on nine years’ community supervision pursuant to a plea bargain.
- Five months later the State filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging three violations: committing criminal trespass, using marijuana once, and failing to complete a Theft Intervention Program.
- At the revocation hearing Hicks pleaded not true to trespass and marijuana-use allegations but pleaded true to failing to complete the Theft Intervention Program.
- The trial court admitted Hicks’s signed voluntary admission of marijuana use and heard testimony that Hicks and others were seen in a backyard where a kitchen window had been broken.
- The trial court found violations, proceeded to adjudicate, convicted Hicks of aggravated robbery, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement (within the statutory 5–99 years range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hicks) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15-year sentence after adjudication is cruel and unusual (grossly disproportionate) | Sentence is grossly disproportionate to the supervision violations and thus violates the Eighth Amendment | Sentence is within statutory range; trial court considered youth and gave chances to allocute; no constitutional violation | Court held claim forfeited for failure to raise at trial; alternatively, the sentence is not grossly disproportionate and does not violate the Eighth Amendment |
| Whether appellant preserved Eighth Amendment claim | Appellant argues sentence is cruel and unusual (raised on appeal) | State contends appellant failed to object or raise claim at allocution or in motion for new trial, so appellate review is forfeited | Court held appellant forfeited the complaint by not raising it at trial or in motion for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles cited)
- Moore v. State, 54 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (petition denied) (court precedent on proportionality review in revocation/adjudication context)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (U.S. Supreme Court decision on Eighth Amendment and proportionality)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (Supreme Court standard for gross disproportionality analysis)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1992) (federal appellate discussion of proportionality analysis)