Richard Gross v. State, 12-15-00280-CR

Richard Gross was indicted for assault on a public servant, pleaded not guilty, and was found guilty by a jury.
The State filed enhancement allegations asserting three prior felony convictions to be considered at punishment.
The trial court conducted a bench trial on punishment and sentenced Gross to 60 years’ imprisonment.
Gross appealed arguing the 60-year sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The sentencing range for the offense with enhancements was 25–99 years or life under Texas law; Gross’s sentence fell within that statutory range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gross’s 60-year sentence is cruel and unusual punishment	Gross argued the sentence was disproportionate and violated the Eighth Amendment	State argued Gross failed to preserve the claim by timely objection and that the sentence was within the legislatively authorized range and not grossly disproportionate	Court held Gross waived error for not preserving it, and on the merits the sentence is not cruel and unusual; affirmed judgment

Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (waiver of constitutional complaints under Texas law)
Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (waiver of federal constitutional complaints without timely objection)
Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate courts should consider error preservation threshold)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (Eighth Amendment applied to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
Rummel v. Estell, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upheld severe habitual-offender sentence; used as proportionality benchmark)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (announced three-part proportionality test)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (required a threshold showing of gross disproportionality)
Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999) (applies Solem/Harmelin framework in Texas appellate review)