Means v. State, 347 S.W.3d 873

Appellant Reuben E. Means was indicted for possession of more than one but less than four grams of cocaine and evading arrest, with a repeat offender notice.
Means pled open guilty to both offenses and pled true to the repeat offender allegation; the trial court accepted pleas and ordered a PSI.
A sentencing hearing followed; the court found Means guilty on both counts, found the repeat offender allegation true, and sentenced him to eight years for possession and two years for evading arrest.
The sentences were to run concurrently; Means argued on appeal that the sentences were excessive and should have been probation.
Means did not object to the sentences at imposition nor present a motion for new trial to preserve appellate Review; the court held his challenges unpreserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of the sentences	Means argues sentences are excessive and warrant probation.	State contends sentences fall within statutory ranges and are not subject to reversal.	Within statutory ranges; not preserved for review
Preservation of Eighth Amendment challenge	Means preserved an Eighth Amendment challenge to harshness of sentences.	State asserts no preservation for Eighth Amendment issue.	Not preserved; majority rejects preservation

Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (disproportionate-sentencing preservation standards; within statutory ranges presumed not excessive)
Washington v. State, 271 S.W.3d 755 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (preservation of sentencing complaints via motion for new trial)
Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (generally, punishment within statutory limits is not excessive)
Laboriel-Guity v. State, 336 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011) (concurrence addressing Eighth Amendment preservation)
Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (concurrent and related discussion on preservation and excessiveness)