Artrell Lee Taylor v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 06-25-00006-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00006-CR

ARTRELL LEE TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 54869-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Artrell Lee Taylor shot and killed Derrick Spearman, and the State charged him with

murder. Taylor pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of manslaughter,1 and pursuant to a

plea agreement with the State, the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community

supervision for ten years and assessed a $5,050.00 fine. The terms and conditions of Taylor’s

community supervision required him to refrain from committing other offenses and to complete

480 hours of community work service at the rate of four hours per month, among other things.

The State alleged that Taylor failed to abide by those terms and conditions when he committed

theft, provided an officer with a fictious name, and failed to complete community service as

ordered. As a result, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Taylor’s guilt. Taylor pled true to the

State’s allegations. Accordingly, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated Taylor’s

guilt for manslaughter, and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment, with a $5,050.00 fine.

On appeal, Taylor argues that his “Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the trial

court imposed a 16-year state prison sentence for four nonviolent, technical probation violations

that are grossly disproportionate to his conduct.” Taylor also argues that his counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to raise this issue at trial. However, Taylor does not argue that a

sixteen-year sentence is a disproportionate sentence for the offense of manslaughter.

Contrary to Taylor’s arguments, Taylor’s sixteen-year sentence was for the underlying

offense of manslaughter, not for his community supervision violations.2 See TEX. CODE CRIM.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.04 (Supp.). 2 Taylor readily admits that this Eighth Amendment complaint was not preserved for review. A “failure to preserve 2 PROC. ANN. art. 42A.110. Yet, Taylor does not complain that his sentence was disproportionate

to the underlying offense of manslaughter, and “[w]e will not make appellant’s arguments for

him.” Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 23 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

As a result, the State argues that Taylor’s point of error, which complains that his

sentence was disproportionate to his community supervision violations, is meritless since he was

not sentenced for those violations, but for his underlying offense. We agree.

As for Taylor’s ineffective assistance claim, “counsel is not deficient for failing to raise

[a] meritless claim[],” and Taylor can show “no prejudice because he would not have prevailed

on” that claim. Ex parte Covarrubias, 665 S.W.3d 605, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)

(orig. proceeding); see Tutt v. State, 940 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d)

(“[T]rial counsel is certainly not ineffective for failure to make meritless objections.” (citing

Riles v. State, 595 S.W.2d 858, 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980))).

Because we find Taylor’s points of error meritless, we overrule them.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 14, 2025 Date Decided: September 12, 2025

Do Not Publish

[an] Eight[h] Amendment claim at trial forfeits the claim for appellate review.” Ex parte Scott, 541 S.W.3d 104, 118 n.14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (citing Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (“The appellant never objected at trial concerning cruel and unusual punishment.”)). 3