Leopoldo Tovar v. State, 12-15-00109-CR

Appellant Leopoldo Tovar was originally sentenced to 10 years probation for DWI (third or more) arising from a January 22, 2011 offense.
A motion to revoke probation was filed; at the revocation hearing Tovar pleaded "true" to all allegations except Allegation No. 1 (an alleged new unadjudicated offense).
The trial court found the pleaded allegations true (except Allegation No. 1), revoked probation, and imposed a 10-year sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–ID (TDCJ–ID).
Appellant prepared this brief arguing the 10-year sentence is disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, seeking vacatur of the judgment and remand for reconsideration.
The brief contends the evidence at the revocation/punishment stage was insufficient to support a finding of a new offense or to justify incarceration rather than modified community supervision.
Appellant asks the appellate court to review the proportionality of the sentence under federal and Texas constitutional standards and relevant case law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tovar)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the 10‑year sentence following revocation is disproportionate and violates the Eighth Amendment and Texas Constitution	Sentence is excessive given the facts and testimony favoring community supervision; evidence did not support a new offense by preponderance and did not justify incarceration	(Implied) Sentence is within statutory range and revocation was supported by the trial court’s factual findings	Not decided in this brief — appellant requests vacatur and remand; no appellate ruling included in the record provided

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (establishes proportionality principles for Eighth Amendment challenges)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (addresses limits and standards for proportionality review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas authority on reviewing sufficiency and deference to trial-court sentencing determinations)
Alberto v. State, 100 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (discussion of proportionality and appellate review of sentences)