Opinion
NO. 09-11-00590-CR
03-28-2012
JOSEPH PATRICK DUGAT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-06898
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joseph Patrick Dugat appeals from the trial court's revocation of his community supervision. In two issues, Dugat contends that his sentence is disproportionate and unreasonable and therefore violates both the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. We overrule Dugat's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Joseph Patrick Dugat is also known as Joseph Patrik Dugat.
Dugat was indicted for the offense of deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.05(b)(2), (e) (West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, he entered a plea of guilty to the lesser-included offense, Class A misdemeanor deadly conduct. See id. § 22.05(a), (e). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Dugat guilty, but deferred finding him guilty, and placed him on community supervision for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Dugat's community supervision. Dugat pled "true" to one violation of the terms of his community supervision. Thereafter, the trial court found that Dugat violated the terms of the community supervision order, found Dugat guilty of the lesser-included offense, a Class A misdemeanor charge of deadly conduct, revoked Dugat's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of one year of confinement.
An appellate court will not overturn a trial judge's decision on punishment absent an abuse of discretion. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Generally, a sentence that is within the range of punishment established by the Texas Legislature will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. Further, as a general rule, the court does not consider a punishment that is within the statutory range for the offense excessive, unconstitutionally cruel, or unusual under either the Texas Constitution or the United States Constitution. See Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd); see also Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.).
The offense of a Class A misdemeanor deadly conduct carries a punishment range of confinement up to one year. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). Dugat's sentence of one year is within the statutory range the Legislature authorized for this crime. See id. Additionally, the record contains no evidence of "sentences imposed for similar offenses on criminals in Texas or other jurisdictions by which to make a comparison." We find that Dugat failed to prove that his sentence was grossly disproportionate. See Jackson, 989 S.W.2d at 846.
Based on the record before us, we are unable to conclude that Dugat's sentence constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. We overrule Dugat's constitutional challenges to the length of the sentence assessed by the trial court, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Do not publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.