Welch v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 148
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- On July 7, 2008, Welch and two others robbed a southeast Houston Whataburger at gunpoint.
- Welch, then seventeen, helped secure the dining area while others forced the manager to open the safe.
- Police pursued the getaway vehicle until it crashed into a bayou; Welch was apprehended.
- Welch confessed and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery; punishment was to be assessed by the trial judge.
- Mitigation evidence included Welch’s claimed head trauma and alleged long psychiatric history; he did not request a specific psychological evaluation.
- The trial judge sentenced Welch to 15 years’ imprisonment after noting concerns about mental health but deeming the offense very serious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Graham require full development of mitigating evidence at sentencing? | Welch: Graham requires development of mitigating mental health evidence. | State: Graham does not create a duty to fully develop mitigating evidence in this context. | No such duty; Graham does not require new punishment hearing here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. (2010)) (juvenile LWOP for nonhomicide; categorical approach in penalties)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (proportionality in noncapital contexts; gross disproportionality inquiry)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (categorical inclusions for certain disabilities in capital context)
- Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2008) (death penalty restrictions for certain crimes against individuals)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (juvenile sentencing standards; evolving standards of decency)
- Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1977) (proportionality in capital punishment for rape of an adult)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1910) (historic articulation of proportionality principles)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1972) (context of individualized consideration in death penalty cases)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (limits on mandatory death penalty schemes and mitigating evidence)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (mitigating evidence as part of sentencing)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (requires consideration of offender's characteristics in sentencing)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mitigating evidence and individualized sentencing)
- Wright v. State, 873 S.W.2d 77 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994) (presumption of regularity; failure to order evaluation may be waived)
- Summers v. State, 942 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (waiver of psychological evaluation rights absent objection)
- Nguyen v. State, 222 S.W.3d 537 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (waiver/forfeiture of presentence evaluation rights)