Taylor, Demarcus Antonio
PD-1674-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Demarcus Antonio Taylor was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; jury found deadly-weapon and drug-free-zone allegations true.
- Jury assessed punishment at 30 years' confinement.
- Appellant appealed; the Dallas Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion on November 25, 2015.
- The Court of Appeals held that a disproportionate-sentence (Eighth Amendment) complaint is waived unless raised at trial or in a motion for new trial.
- Appellant filed this Petition for Discretionary Review asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to resolve whether such complaints may be raised for the first time on appeal because an unconstitutional (disproportionate) sentence is an illegal, void sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (State / Court of Appeals) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a proportionality (Eighth Amendment) challenge is waived if not raised at trial or in a motion for new trial | A proportionality challenge need not be preserved because a sentence that violates the Constitution is an illegal (void) sentence and may be raised for the first time on appeal | The right is waived unless the defendant objects at sentencing or raises the issue in a motion for new trial; appellate courts may decline review if not preserved | Court of Appeals held defendant waived the claim by not objecting at trial or raising it in a motion for new trial |
| Whether an Eighth Amendment disproportionality claim is analogous to a sentence outside the statutory range (and thus reviewable as void) | Proportionality violations are constitutional defects rendering a sentence unauthorized by law and therefore void — reviewable on appeal despite lack of preservation | Preservation rules apply; proportionality claims require development and cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal | Appellant asks CCA to overrule cases requiring preservation; Court of Appeals applied preservation rule |
| Practicality of requiring contemporaneous objection or new-trial filing for proportionality claims | Requiring objection or new-trial litigation is impractical: sentencing ends the trial; compiling comparative-sentence evidence in the short new-trial window is often impossible | Preservation requirements are administrable and consistent with existing precedent and trial procedure | Court of Appeals enforced preservation despite the appellant's practicality arguments |
| Whether precedents treating illegal sentences reviewable on appeal control proportionality claims | Appellant relies on Ex parte Beck and Ex parte McIver to equate constitutional disproportionality with other illegal sentences reviewable on appeal | Court of Appeals and some intermediate courts distinguish proportionality claims and require preservation | The petition asks the CCA to reconcile/overrule contrary intermediate-court holdings; Court of Appeals sided with preservation rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding certain sentences outside statutory authority are void and reviewable on habeas/appeal)
- Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (same principle: illegal sentences unauthorized by law are void)
- Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (intermediate appellate decision requiring preservation of proportionality claims)
- Wynn v. State, 219 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (same: proportionality challenges must be raised at trial or in motion for new trial)
- McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.) (discusses comparative analysis used in disproportionality review)