Ronald Lee Shelburg v. State
This text of Ronald Lee Shelburg v. State (Ronald Lee Shelburg 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 TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00172-CR
RONALD LEE SHELBURG, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 32032-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant plead guilty to the felony offense of assault family violence,
subsequent offense. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2) (West Pamp. 2010). After a
sentencing hearing, the trial judge assessed his punishment at 9 years in prison.
Appellant appeals.
On May 8, 2008, appellant went to his mother-in-law’s home where his wife and
two sons were staying. He entered the home without announcing his presence. He
surprised his wife. Few, if any words were exchanged. In the presence of his sons, he
punched his wife in the mouth and then in the eye. The second blow knocked her to the ground. Her head hit a cabinet as she fell. As appellant’s brother-in-law came into the
room, appellant hit him also. During the ensuing struggle, appellant’s wife ran across
the street to call the police. Appellant gave chase while screaming profanities at his
wife. She was able to call 9-1-1. Appellant fled before the police arrived. He was
arrested the following day.
At the punishment hearing, both the victim and appellant testified. The victim
stated that appellant had been verbally and mentally abusive to her on a daily basis,
that he had hit her on two other occasions, and that she was afraid of him and wanted
him to go to prison. The appellant testified that he wanted to support his children and
be given probation. He also admitted to three prior misdemeanor convictions for
assault – two of which involved domestic abuse. The longest previous sentence he
received was 12 months in jail. At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant’s lawyer
asked the judge to sentence him to probation; the prosecutor asked for 10 years in
prison. Neither the sufficiency of the evidence nor the voluntariness of the guilty plea is
challenged on appeal.
In appellant’s sole issue on appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in sentencing appellant to 9 years in prison. He contends the trial court failed
to consider the “overwhelming circumstances that would make probation in this cause
a just and sensible alternative to prison.” Because the trial judge did not abuse his
discretion, we affirm the judgment.
Typically, challenges to the proportionality of the length of a sentence to the facts
are raised as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual
Shelburg v. State Page 2 punishment.”1 E.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed 2d 836
(1991). Although such claims are seldom successful, there is an established body of case
law which provides a framework for analyzing such an Eighth Amendment claim. See
Graham v. Florida, _____ U. S. ______, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). See also
Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Appellant has, instead, cast his issue in terms of an “abuse of discretion.” He has
not cited any cases where an appellate court has reviewed the length of an otherwise
lawful sentence and determined that the court abused its discretion by imposing such a
sentence. Indeed, the only case he cites is Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1984). Jackson involves a court’s abuse of discretion in the procedure employed at
the sentencing phase; it has nothing to do with the actual sentence and, therefore, no
applicability to this case.2
In reviewing a sentence under an “abuse of discretion” claim, we follow the
general rule that any sentence within the statutory range of punishment is not
excessive. McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Price v. State, 35
S.W.3d 136, 144 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). Appellant was convicted of assault
family violence, subsequent offense, under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2). Such an
1 To raise an Eighth Amendment issue on appeal, it must be brought to the attention of the trial court. Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d) (following and discussing four previous cases finding waiver where no objection to the sentence was presented to the trial court). In this case, no Eighth Amendment objection was raised at the trial court level. This may be the reason he has not raised an Eighth Amendment issue.
2 Jackson involved a defendant who was convicted after a bench trial. The judge died and was replaced for the sentencing. The new judge relied exclusively on a pre-sentence investigation report to set punishment. Over the defendant’s objections, he refused to review a transcription of the actual witnesses’ testimony at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.
Shelburg v. State Page 3 offense is a third degree felony punishable by anywhere from 2 to 10 years in prison
and an optional fine up to $10,000. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.34 (West Supp. 2010). The
9 year sentence was within that range of punishment.
Sentencing is necessarily subjective. Factors which one judge deems important
may be viewed differently by another judge. The trial court’s discretion allows it to
impose any sentence authorized by law.3
The sentence in this case was within the statutory range of punishment. The trial
court did not abuse his discretion. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Having overruled appellant’s sole ground of error, the judgment is affirmed.
KEN ANDERSON District Judge
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Scoggins, and Judge Anderson4 Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 27, 2011 Do not publish [CR25]
3 We have set out the facts as developed in the case to put appellant’s argument in context. We are not, however, relying on a subjective review of those facts to determine whether the trial court abused his discretion.
4 Ken Anderson, Judge of the 277th District Court of Williamson County, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (West 2005).
Shelburg v. State Page 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ronald Lee Shelburg v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-lee-shelburg-v-state-texapp-2011.