Grazier Othella May v. State
This text of Grazier Othella May v. State (Grazier Othella May v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________
No. 06-11-00079-CR ______________________________
GRAZIER OTHELLA MAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 39741-B
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Gregg County, Texas, Grazier Othella May was indicted for possession1 of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver. May entered an open plea of guilty to possession with intent to
deliver. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced May to twenty years‘
imprisonment in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 2011).
On appeal, May argues that the trial court erred because: (1) it did not consider the full
range of punishment; and (2) the sentence was disproportionate to the offense.
We affirm the judgment because: (1) May failed to preserve error regarding any alleged
failure to consider the full range of punishment; and (2) there is no evidence in the record
reflecting sentences imposed for similar offenses.
I. May Failed to Preserve Error Regarding any Alleged Failure to Consider the Full Range of Punishment
The Constitutional mandate of due process requires a neutral and detached judicial officer
who will consider the full range of punishment and mitigating evidence. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
411 U.S. 778, 786–87 (1973). A trial court denies due process when it arbitrarily refuses to
consider the entire range of punishment for an offense or refuses to consider mitigating evidence
and imposes a predetermined punishment. Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 454 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). In the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, we presume that the trial court was
1 May was alleged to have possessed more than four grams but less than 200 grams of cocaine.
2 neutral and detached. Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 366 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet.
ref‘d) (citing Thompson v. State, 641 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982)).
In his first point of error, May argues that the trial court failed to consider the full range of
punishment for this offense. Specifically, he claims that his right to due process was violated
because of the trial court‘s ―arbitrary refusal to consider granting probation in this case . . . .‖
Such a complaint is not preserved for review unless a timely objection is raised. Teixeira v. State,
89 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref‘d); Washington v. State, 71 S.W.3d
498, 499 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, no pet.); Cole v. State, 757 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 1988, pet. ref‘d). Here, May neither objected to the trial court‘s ruling, nor
raised this issue in his motion for new trial. Therefore, this error is not preserved for our review.
II. There Is No Evidence in the Record Reflecting Sentences Imposed for Similar Offenses
In his second point of error, May contends that the trial court erred because the twenty-year
sentence is disproportionate to the offense. May‘s motion for new trial contains a contention that
the sentence was disproportionate to the offense. A motion for new trial is an appropriate way to
preserve this type of claim for review.2 See Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523–24 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2005, no pet.).
2 The trial court did not conduct a hearing on May‘s motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.8.
3 Texas courts have traditionally held that as long as the punishment assessed is within the
range prescribed by the Legislature in a valid statute, the punishment is not excessive, cruel, or
unusual. See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Here, May‘s
sentence falls within the applicable range of not more than ninety-nine years or less than five years
and a fine of up to $10,000.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32.
That does not end the inquiry. A prohibition against grossly disproportionate punishment
survives under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution apart from any
consideration of whether the punishment assessed is within the range established by the
Legislature. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII; see Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983); Harmelin v.
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Scalia, J., plurality op.); Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 846
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.); Lackey v. State, 881 S.W.2d 418, 420–21 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1994, pet. ref‘d); see also Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323–24 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006) (describing this principle as involving a ―very limited, ‗exceedingly rare,‘ and
somewhat amorphous‖ review).
Solem had suggested, as a three-part test, that an appellate court consider: (1) the gravity
of the offense compared with the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed for similar
crimes in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in
other jurisdictions. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. Harmelin at least raised questions about the
viability of the Solem three-part test. In fact, it was subsequently held that proportionality
4 survived Harmelin, but that the Solem three-part test did not. See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d
313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 420–21. In light of Harmelin, the test has been
reformulated as an initial threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense with the severity of the
sentence; and then, only if that initial comparison created an inference that the sentence was
grossly disproportionate to the offense should there be a consideration of the other two Solem
factors—sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and sentences for the same crime in
other jurisdictions. McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316; Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.); Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 420–21.
We do not believe the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense,
but even if it was, there is no evidence in the record from which we could compare May‘s sentence
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Grazier Othella May v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grazier-othella-may-v-state-texapp-2011.