Joseph Lang Cooper A/K/A Joseph Cooper A/K/A Joseph L. Cooper v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 7, 2012
• Docket: 09-12-00255-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-12-00255-CR ____________________

JOSEPH LANG COOPER A/K/A JOSEPH COOPER A/K/A JOSEPH L. COOPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11-12395 ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Under a plea agreement, Joseph Lang Cooper pleaded guilty to failure to comply

with sex offender registration requirements. The trial court found Cooper guilty, assessed

his punishment at ten years in prison, suspended imposition of his sentence, placed

Cooper on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $500 fine.

The State filed a motion to revoke. After finding five of the alleged violations to

be true, the trial court revoked Cooper‟s community supervision, and sentenced him to

ten years in prison.

1 In issues one and two, Cooper argues that the trial court‟s sentence was

disproportionate and unreasonable, thereby violating his rights under the Eighth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution.

See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. Cooper does not argue that the

relevant state constitutional provisions are broader and offer greater protection than the

Eighth Amendment. See Baldridge v. State, 77 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref‟d); Puga v. State, 916 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1996, no pet.). We address Cooper‟s issues together.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that

“[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and

unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. “Subject only to a very

limited, „exceedingly rare,‟ and somewhat amorphous Eighth Amendment gross-

disproportionality review, a punishment that falls within the legislatively prescribed

range, and that is based upon the sentencer‟s informed normative judgment, is

unassailable on appeal.” Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323-24 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006) (footnote omitted); see also Jarvis v. State, 315 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2010, no pet.). The sentence was within the statutory range. See Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102 (West 2006); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34 (West 2011).

The sentence is not subject to a sufficiency of the evidence review on appeal. See Jarvis,

315 S.W.3d at 161-62.

2 A complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and

unusual punishment, must be preserved for appellate review by a timely request,

objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. Kim v. State, 283

S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref‟d) (citing Rhoades v. State, 934

S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)); see Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Cooper did not

raise this complaint below. The issue is not preserved for appellate review.

Issues one and two are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on October 8, 2012 Opinion Delivered November 7, 2012 Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.