It has been held that the cumulation of sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970), and that a forerunner of said Article 42.08 does not violate Article I, §§ 13 of the Texas Constitution. Lillard v. State, 17 Tex. App. 114[ 17 Tex.Crim. 114] (1884); Shumaker v. State, 10 Tex. App. 117[ 10 Tex.Crim. 117] (1881). As regards the Eighth Amendment, United States Constitution, see Boerngen v. United States, 326 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1964).
Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Thus, the trial court's order that Appellant's convictions run consecutively comports with the requirements set forth by the legislature and is not prohibited as cruel, unusual, or excessive per se.
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970); see Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
The act of ordering that sentences will run consecutively does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 480-81 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). Nonetheless, Appellant urges this Court to perform the three-part test originally set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983).
See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Kim, 283 S.W.3d at 475; Noland, 264 S.W.3d at 151-52; Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 927-28; Quintana, 777 S.W.2d at 479; see also Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (providing that cumulating a sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment) (citing Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). The punishment for a second-degree felony is confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for "any term of not more than [twenty] years or less than [two] years."
Cumulating sentences is not cruel and unusual punishment. Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Article 42.08's authorization for the trial court to cumulate sentences does not deny due process to a defendant.
Moreover, the act of cumulating sentences so that they run consecutively has been held not to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 480 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). We hold that the trial court did not err when it ordered Appellant's life sentence in this case to run consecutively to the life sentence he was on parole for at the time of trial, as the action was within the court's discretion.
Moreover, even had Williams preserved error, a punishment falling within the limits prescribed by a valid statute, as in this case, is not usually excessive, cruel, or unusual.See Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928; see also Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (providing that cumulating a sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment) (citing Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). We overrule Williams's third issue.
The cumulation of sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 480 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). Howard has not shown the trial court's decision to order the sentence to be served consecutively, or stacked, caused the sentence to be grossly disproportionate.
The cumulation of sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970); Quintana v. State, 777 S.W.2d 474, 480 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). Davis has not shown the trial court's decision to order the sentence to be served consecutively, or stacked, caused the sentence to be grossly disproportionate.