Melquiades Hernandez v. State
05-14-00495-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Melquiades Hernandez was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a young child under Tex. Penal Code § 21.02(b).
- The trial court assessed punishment at 60 years’ imprisonment; the statutory range is 25 years to 99 years or life.
- At sentencing appellant did not object to the length of the sentence nor raise disproportionate-punishment claims in his motion for new trial.
- On appeal appellant challenged the sentence as grossly disproportionate under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and asked to correct the judgment to show the court (not the jury) assessed punishment.
- The State argued appellant failed to preserve the constitutional complaint and agreed the judgment should be corrected regarding who assessed punishment.
- The Court of Appeals modified the judgment to reflect that the court assessed punishment and affirmed the modified judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60-year sentence is grossly disproportionate/cruel and unusual | Hernandez: sentence is excessive and inappropriate given denial at punishment and being > twice minimum | State: Hernandez failed to preserve complaint; sentence within statutory range and lawful | Not preserved for appeal; sentence within statutory range is not cruel or unusual — issues overruled |
| Whether judgment should be modified to show who assessed punishment | Hernandez: judgment incorrectly states jury assessed punishment and should show court did | State: Agrees judgment is incorrect and should be modified | Court sustains request, modifies judgment to reflect punishment was assessed by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (constitutional rights, including protection from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived)
- Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (failure to object at sentencing forfeits appellate review of punishment complaints)
- Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (punishment within statutory range is not excessive or cruel and unusual)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (same principle regarding statutory-range sentences)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (affirming modification of judgment to correct clerical errors regarding sentencing)