Simpson, Mark Twain, PD-0599-15

Mark Twain Simpson pled guilty to robbery with an enhancement alleging a 1984 aggravated-robbery conviction; court assessed a 25-year prison sentence (range with enhancement: 5–99 years or life).
Simpson’s role: drove the getaway car and pawned a stolen PlayStation; victim was injured by a co-defendant.
Simpson’s criminal history included 16 aggravated-robbery convictions and other offenses from ~30 years earlier, plus more recent minor theft and a pending forgery charge.
Simpson moved for a new punishment trial alleging his 25-year sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality principle (cruel and unusual punishment).
Trial court granted a new punishment trial after a hearing in which Simpson presented testimony about his drug problems, family circumstances, and the relative sentences of co-defendants; court said it would have preferred long probation.
The State appealed; the Fifth Court of Appeals vacated the trial-court order, holding the sentence was not grossly disproportionate and the punishment proceeding had been conducted according to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson substantiated a motion-for-new-trial claim that his sentence was cruel and unusual (disproportionality)	Simpson argued he articulated a valid Eighth Amendment claim, pointed to evidence in the record (minimal role, dated priors, co-defendant sentences, drug addiction) and thus trial court could grant a new punishment trial	State argued Simpson bore a higher burden (preponderance of competent evidence of gross disproportionality) and that no reasonable view of the record supports finding the sentence grossly disproportionate	Court of Appeals held Simpson did not produce evidence substantiating gross disproportionality; trial court abused discretion in granting new trial and order vacated; judgment reinstated

State v. Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for trial-court discretion to grant new trial in interest of justice)
Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sentences within statutory limits generally not cruel or unusual)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (proportionality analysis framework for Eighth Amendment review)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (upholding long sentence under habitual-offender scheme against proportionality challenge)
State v. Stewart, 282 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (recognizing disproportionate-punishment claim as valid basis for motion for new trial)