Case Information
*0 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/1/2015 2:55:07 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 06-15-00004-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/1/2015 2:55:07 PM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK No. 06-15-00004-CR __________________________________________________________________________
IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS __________________________________________________________________________
LESLIE LEE
Appellant, v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS th Appealed from the 188 District Court
Gregg County, Texas __________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT __________________________________________________________________________
Clement Dunn State Bar No. 06249300 140 East Tyler, Suite 240 Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: 903-753-7071 Fax: 903-753-8783 ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED *2 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment and the names and addresses of their trial and appellate counsel.
1. Appellant: Leslie Lee
2. Appellant’s Trial Counsel: Clement Dunn
Attorney at Law
140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240 Longview, TX 75601 TSB No. 06249300 3. Appellant’s Counsel on Appeal: Clement Dunn
Attorney at Law 140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240 Longview, TX 75601 TSB No. 06249300 4. Attorney for the State: Ms. Tanya Reed
Assistant District Attorney, Gregg County 101 E. Methvin, Suite 333 Longview, Texas 75601 TSB No. 24039204 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS I DENTITY OF P ARTIES AND C OUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I NDEX OF A UTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
S TATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
S TATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUE PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ii *4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases
Ingraham v. Wright , 430 U.S. 651, 671-72, n. 40 (1977); 44 Geo. L. J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc.
1013 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11, 18-20 (2003) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 965 (1991)(Scalia, Jr., concurring)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304,311 (2002)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Glossip v. Gross , - -U.S.- - No. 14-7955, dec’d June 29, 2015... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Constitutional Provisions Eighth Amendment to The United States Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
iii *5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Offense: Theft
Verdict: Guilty; Six (6) months’ confinement - Texas Department of Criminal Justice
- State Jail.
Date of Verdict: October 8, 2014. th
Trial Court: 188 District Court, Gregg County, Texas. This case involves a prosecution for Theft-Habitual, pursuant to Section 31(e)(4)(D), Texas Penal Code, in Cause Number 42,954-A, in the 188 District Court of Greg County, th
Texas. The Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the Trial Court. (R.R., at 5.) This occurred
as an “open plea” (id., at 8) - - that is, no plea agreement existed between the State and the
Appellant. Following a hearing on punishment, the Trial Court imposed a sentence of six
months’ confinement in a State Jail. (Id., at 21.)
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Believing the instant case contains issues capable of resolution on the basis of the record and the briefs, the Appellant respectfully does not request oral argument.
ISSUE PRESENTED The Trial Court’s imposition of a term of six months’ confinement violates the proportionality guarantees of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The record reflects that the underlying theft in this case involved shoplifting at Wal- Mart. (R.R., at St. Ex. 2.) “The total for all the items taken was $111.74.” (Id.) All items were
recovered, and released by the Longview Police Department back to Wal-Mart. (Id.)
Although the Appellant did have prior theft convictions, these were shown to be both remote and minor. (Id., at 13.) She also has a prior felony conviction, for Driving While
Intoxicated, which resulted in a prison sentence of eight years. But she had attended college, at
the time of the hearing, and lacked only a single semester of finishing her degree (Id., at 7; 13-
14.) She had also maintained gainful employment before becoming a full-time student. Id., at
13-14.)
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The disparity between the seriousness of the primary offense (misdemeanor shoplifting) and the severity of the sentence (six months’ confinement in State Jail) violates
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ARGUMENT The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment upon persons convicted of crime. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72 n. 40 (1977);
44 Geo. L. J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 1013 (2015). The Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Clause limits criminal punishment in three ways: (1) it “imposes substantive limits on what
can be made criminal and punished as such;” (2) it prohibits certain kinds of punishment;
and (3) it prohibits punishment “grossly disproportionate” to the severity of the offense.
Inghram, supra; Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 18-20 (2003).
In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the primary inquiry in analyzing the proportionality of sentences should involve a comparison of
the gravity of the offense with the harshness of the penalty. Subsequently, the Court has
stated that the two additional factors set forth in Solem –a comparison of the sentence with
those imposed for various offenses in the same jurisdiction and a comparison of the sentence
with those imposed for the same or similar offenses in other jurisdictions–should only be
considered “to validate an initial judgement that a sentence is grossly disproportionate to a
crime.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 (1991)(Scalia, Jr., concurring). The
concurrence in Harmelin concluded that Solem “is best understood as holding that
comparative analysis within and between jurisdictions is not always relevant to
proportionality review.” Harmelin, supra, at 1004-05 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment).
It is respectfully submitted in the instant case that the sentence of six months’ confinement in a State Jail constitutes a “grossly disproportionate” sentence in light of the
underlying offense of shoplifting. This offense, as noted above, involved a minimal amount
(and value) of property. The property was recovered and returned to the owner (Wal-Mart).
The Appellant also respectfully submits that this disproportionality of sentence compared to conduct operates independently of any existing matrix of sentences in similar
cases. The Appellant instead relies on the prevailing norms of society as a whole, and the
recognition that societal standards regarding punishment evolve over time. As Justice Breyer
recently opined in dissent (Ginsburg joining):
“The Constitution there forbids the “inflict(ion)” of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Amdt. 8. The Court has recognized that a “claim that punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685 when Lord Jeffreys presided over the ‘Bloody Assizes’ or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail.” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304,311 (2002). Indeed, the Constitution prohibits various gruesome punishments that were common in Blackstone’s day. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 369-370 (1769) (listing mutilations and dismembering, among other punishments).
Glossip v. Gross, - -U.S.- - No. 14-7955, dec’d June 29, 2015.
The instant case arises at a time of great and growing concern over the great and increasing numbers of people incarcerated in the American criminal justice system. See, e.g.,
The Economist, “Jailhouse nation” (cover story), June 20, 2015 edition. The Appellant has
shown no proclivities towards violence. To the degree that her punishment encompasses a
theory of deterrence of recidivism --see Argument of the State, R.R., at 17-18,--the prior
offenses are both non-violent and involve small amounts of money or property value. It is in
this setting that the Appellant respectfully submits her sentence must be viewed as “grossly
disproportionate” under the Eighth Amendment.
PRAYER The Appellant respectfully requests this case be reversed and remanded to the Trial Court for a new hearing on punishment.
Respectfully submitted, __/s/ Clement Dunn_______________ 140 East Tyler Street, Suite 240 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-7071 Fax: 903-753-8783 State Bar No. 06249300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was delivered to the Gregg st County District Attorney’s Office, Longview, Texas on this 1 day of July 2015.
__/s/ Clement Dunn_______________ CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT I hereby certify that a total of 1309 words are included in this brief. __/s/ Clement Dunn_______________