Markus Ray Sneed v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4880
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Markus Sneed convicted of possession of four grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver; sentence 25 years running consecutively to a life term in a separate cause.
- Indictment contained two counts: 1) possession with intent to deliver; 2) simple possession. Appellant pled not guilty to first count and guilty to second.
- Trial court instructed jury to convict on second count if first count was not proven; jury found first-count possession with intent to deliver.
- Appellant argued on appeal that punishment should not have been submitted to the jury without a written election to have the jury assess punishment; record later showed an election.
- Court affirmed the conviction and addressed multiple issues, including sufficiency of the evidence and proportionality of the sentence.
- Supplemental clerk’s record showed Defendant’s Election as to Punishment filed before voir dire, making the punishment issue moot and overruling related issues as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punishment should have been submitted to the jury without a written election | Sneed argued no written election existed. | State contends there was a proper election filed. | Moot; election found in supplemental record; issues overruled. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to deliver | Evidence showed 6.37 g of cocaine; argues no intent to deliver. | State contends circumstantial evidence supports intent to deliver. | Sufficient evidence supports intent to deliver. |
| Whether the 25-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense | Sentence excessive given the offense and circumstances. | Not disproportionate; within statutory range and justified by conduct. | Not grossly disproportionate; not cruel and unusual. |
| Whether consecutive sentencing to the life term was proper | Consecutive sentence should be improper due to prior life sentence. | Trial court has discretion to order consecutive sentences. | Consecutive sentence properly ordered; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1989) (standard for sufficiency review: rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (proportionality review limited; gross disproportionality rare outside capital cases)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1992) (threshold offense vs. sentence gravity comparison in proportionality analysis)
- Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (proportionality framework within state law; non-capital contexts rare to succeed)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for sufficiency and credibility considerations in appellate review)
- Mack v. State, 859 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (use of expert testimony to prove intent to deliver)