Wilkerson v. State, 347 S.W.3d 720

Wilkerson killed William and Louise Lewis in their New Caney home in January 2006.
He was indicted on two counts of capital murder and convicted by a jury.
No death penalty was pursued; punishment fixed at life imprisonment without parole under Tex. Penal Code § 12.31.
Appellant raised five issues on appeal; the trial court had issued findings of fact and conclusions of law during the appeal.
The appellate court ultimately found issue one moot and overruled the remaining issues, affirming the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal should be abated for findings of fact and conclusions of law	Wilkerson argued for abatement for extra findings	State contends no abatement needed; moot if findings already issued	Issue moot; abatement not needed
Whether mandatory life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment	Wilkerson argues lack of mitigating evidence under Eighth Amendment and Texas Const.	State contends Harmelin controls; Graham not applicable	Overruled; sentence upheld as constitutional under applicable standards
Whether Graham v. Florida affects the case; Eighth Amendment claim preservation	Graham supports individualized consideration of mitigating evidence	Graham does not apply; Harmelin remains controlling here	Graham inapplicable; Harmelin controls; issues overruled
Whether mandatory sentencing violates separation of powers	Wilkerson claims executive clemency power was improperly bypassed	Prosecutor's election does not encroach on executive or Board powers	Issue overruled; no separation of powers violation
Whether the trial court erred by explaining proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Explanation altered accuracy of burden of proof	No reversible error; waiver and Blue line of cases not triggered	Issue overruled; explanation not reversible error

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (no enhanced right to mitigating evidence for term-of-years sentences)
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (necessity of individualized sentencing in capital cases)
Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1987) (recognizes individualized sentencing for capital punishment)
Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (initial standard for reasonable-doubt instruction (overruled))
Burns v. State, 761 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (mitigation and sentencing considerations in capital cases)
Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (mitigation in capital sentencing context)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 56 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life without parole for non-homicide crime unconstitutional; narrow proportionality use)
Barefield v. State, 784 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (prosecutor discretion not equal to legislative power to define penalties)
Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (overruled Rose on preservation requirement for facial challenges)
Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (commentary on preservation of error for jury instructions)