No. 12-02-00163-CR
Opinion delivered July 23, 2003 Do Not Publish
Appeal From The 145th Judicial District Court Of Nacogdoches County, Texas
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DEVASTO, J.
DIANE DEVASTO, Justice.
Lamar Patrick Wade ("Appellant") appeals the twenty-five-year sentence imposed on him following the revocation of his deferred adjudication probation. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.
Background
Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of indecency with a child. The court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed him on probation for ten years. The State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's probation and to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms of his probation. Appellant pleaded "true" to some of the State's allegations, but pleaded "not true" to others. Subsequently, a hearing was held on the State's motion, and the trial court found that Appellant had violated certain terms of his probation as alleged. The trial court revoked Appellant's probation, proceeded to adjudicate Appellant guilty and assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years. This appeal followed. Predetermination of Sentence In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly predetermined his sentence by failing to consider certain mitigating evidence in its assessment of Appellant's punishment. Noting that the sentence pronounced by the trial court was only five years removed from the bar established by the sentence urged by the prosecuting attorney, Appellant contends that the trial court merely allowed Appellant "the fiction of a hearing" before announcing its twenty-five-year sentence. Yet, Appellant de-emphasizes the fact that the trial court could have sentenced him to ninety-nine years for a single count of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(2)(B)(e) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (Vernon 2003); cf. Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd.). Appellant's twenty-five-year sentence is only a fraction of the sentence the trial court could have imposed. As our review of the record reveals no evidence indicating that the trial court failed to consider any mitigating evidence or otherwise predetermined Appellant's sentence, we hold that the trial court did commit the error of which Appellant complains. Appellant's first issue is overruled. Cruel and Unusual Punishment In his second issue, Appellant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court constituted cruel and unusual punishment under both the Texas and United States Constitutions. The legislature is vested with the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties. See Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 664; see also Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd). Courts have repeatedly held that punishment which falls within the limits prescribed by a valid statute is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. See Harris, 656 S.W.2d at 486; Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 664. In the case at hand, Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, a first degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code § 22.021(e). The punishment range for such an offense is between five and ninety-nine years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (Vernon 1994). Here, the punishment assessed by the trial court falls well within the range set forth by the legislature. Id. Therefore, the punishment is not prohibited as cruel, unusual or excessive per se. Nonetheless, Appellant urges the Court to perform the three-part test set out in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). Under this test, the proportionality of a sentence is evaluated by considering (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Solem, 463 U.S. at 292, 103 S.Ct. at 3011. The application of the Solem test has been modified by Texas courts and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin to require a threshold determination that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime before addressing the remaining elements. See, e.g., McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316; see also Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845-46 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). In determining whether Appellant's sentence is grossly disproportionate, we are guided by the holding in Rummel v. Estell, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980). In Rummel , the Supreme Court addressed the proportionality claim of an appellant who had received a mandatory life sentence under a prior version of the Texas habitual offender statute for a conviction for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses. Id., 445 U.S. at 266, 100 S.Ct. at 1135. The life sentence was imposed because the appellant also had two prior felony convictions, one for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80.00 worth of goods or services, and the other for passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36. Id., 445 U.S. at 266, 100 S.Ct. at 1134-35. After both recognizing the legislative prerogative to classify offenses as felonies and considering the purpose of the habitual offender statute, the court determined that the appellant's mandatory life sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id., 445 U.S. at 285, 100 S.Ct. at 1145. Considering Appellant's sentence in light of the holding in Rummel , the distinction between the two cases is clear. The offense committed by Appellant, aggravated sexual assault, was more severe than the offense committed by the appellant in Rummel , while Appellant's twenty-five-year sentence is less severe than the life sentence upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, it follows that if the sentence in Rummel was not unconstitutionally disproportionate, then neither is the sentence assessed against Appellant in the case at hand. Therefore, since we do not find the threshold test to be satisfied, we need not apply the remaining elements of the Solem test. Appellant's second issue is overruled. Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant's issues one and two, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence imposed thereby.