Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
166 citation events (161 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kevin Toledo v. State (texapp, 2018-01-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevin Toledo v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, 4 pet. ref’d) (citing Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref’d)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christi Lynn Coker v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Hicks v. State, 15 S.W. 3d 626 (Tex. App. – Houston {14th Dist. } 2000, pet. ref’d); Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W. 3d 812 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d); Dunn v. State, 997 S.W. 2d 885 (Tex. App. – Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W. 2d 755, 757 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Puga v. State, 916 S.W. 2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App. - 7|Page San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Matthews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 668-69 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) an Lackey v. State, 881 S.W. 2d 418, 420-421 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1994, pet ref’d).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christopher J. Birdow v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Hicks v. State, 15 S.W. 3d 626 (Tex. App. – Houston {14th Dist. } 2000, pet. ref’d); Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W. 3d 7 |Page 812 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d); Dunn v. State, 997 S.W. 2d 885 (Tex. App. – Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W. 2d 755, 757 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Puga v. State, 916 S.W. 2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Matthews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 668-69 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) an Lackey v. State, 881 S.W. 2d 418, 420-421 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1994, pet ref’d).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dezmon Martin Garcia v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Arriaga v. State, 335 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (analyzing the proportionality of the sentence in light of the crime committed, not the terms of community supervision); Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jimmy Andrew Davis, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Hicks v. State, 15 S.W. 3d 626 (Tex. App. – Houston {14th Dist. } 2000, pet. ref’d); Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W. 3d 812 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d); Dunn v. State, 997 S.W. 2d 885 (Tex. App. – Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W. 2d 755, 757 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Puga v. State, 916 S.W. 2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Matthews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 668-69 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1996, pet. ref’d) an Lackey v. State, 881 S.W. 2d 418, 420-421 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1994, pet ref’d).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabier Gonzales AKA Harvey Gonzales AKA Javier Gonzales v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 291 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 (1983); Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 ; Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) However, to the 5 extent that such review remains viable, the appellate court should look ftrst to the gravity ofthe offense arid the harshness of the penalty.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Virginia Faye Holloway v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Honorable Stephen Williams, District Judge 24th Judicial District Court, Jackson County Courthouse 115 West Main Street Edna, Texas 77957 Email: [email protected] Trial Judge ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPELLANT’S ISS…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asencio Perez, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Hulsey v. State, No. 02-12-00205-CR, 2013 WL 627019 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 21, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); see Moore, 54 S.W.3d at 542 (“[T]he court initially made a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence.”) (emphasis added) (citing McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Allen Hammer v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Hulsey v. State, No. 02-12-00205-CR, 2013 WL 627019 , at *2 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 21, 2013, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); see Moore, 54 S.W.3d at 542 ("[T]he court initially made a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence”) (emphasis added) (citing McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316 ). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daryl Keith Watts v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hysone M. Patterson v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g. , Castaneda v. State , 135 S.W.3d 719, 724-25 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (concluding that thirty-year sentence for third degree felony offense of burglary of vehicle, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was not grossly disproportionate under federal constitution); Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (noting that five-year sentence imposed on first-time offender for burglary of habitation was well-below maximum term of imprisonment permitted and was not grossly disproportionate to offense).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sebastian Willie Mejia v. State (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
We have recognized that “the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir.1992)); see Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983); Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) 17 (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of appellant’s sentence under the Solem and McGruder tests).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sebastian Willie Mejia v. State (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
We have recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Trevino , 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir.1992)); see Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983); Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of appellant's sentence under the Solem and McGruder tests).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Ramiro Gonzalez v. State (5×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In Sullivan v. State, this Court applied both the Solem and McGruder tests to determine whether the appellant's sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense he committed. 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 1998, no pet.); see also Solem, 463 U.S. at 290 ; McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Ramiro Gonzalez v. State (5×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In Sullivan v. State , this Court applied both the Solem and McGruder tests to determine whether the appellant's sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense he committed. 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi, 1998, no pet.); see also Solem , 463 U.S. at 290 ; McGruder , 954 F.2d at 316 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PATRICK CAVELL AKA PATRICK LOVELL v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of appellant's sentence under the Solem and McGruder tests); see also Burnett v .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trevino v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 ; Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Maurice Hampton v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Tatum v. State , 649 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1983, no pet.) (ten years for burglary of a habitation); Barrerra v. State , No. 14-02-041-CR, 2002 WL 31835063 , *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 19, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (eight years); Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (five years).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Atchison v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, pet. ref'd).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mark Atchison v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, pet. ref’d).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mark Atchison v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Fielding v. State , 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1986, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicolas Ortiz v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
"However a strict application of the Solem test has been questioned since the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dunn v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Three others have acknowledged McGruder and Harmelin but have nevertheless applied the Solem factors in assessing the proportionality of the sentences in question even after finding the sentences were not “grossly disproportionate.” See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Simmons, 944 S.W.2d at 15 ; Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 664-65 .
discussed Cited "see" Syrus Anderson Jr. v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, no pet.); Hammer v. State, 461 S.W.3d 301, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) (“In resolving an Eighth Amendment disproportionality complaint, we first compare the gravity of the offense to the severity of the sentence.
discussed Cited "see" Dondre Carter v. the State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, no pet.); Hammer v. State, 461 S.W.3d 301, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) (“In resolving an Eighth Amendment disproportionality complaint, we first compare the gravity of the offense to the severity of the sentence.
discussed Cited "see" Josue Manuel Nieto v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg 1998, no pet.) (evaluating proportionality of a sentence to the original charge rather than the violation of community supervision terms). 5 record before us.
discussed Cited "see" Kaylon Doby v. State
Tex. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, no pet.); see also Evans v. State, No. 13-18-00658-CR, 2019 WL 3955459 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (relying on Sullivan and denying to apply Solem factors because the appellant failed to raise Solem in the trial court).
cited Cited "see" Brian Evans v. State
Tex. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, no pet.). 7 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
discussed Cited "see" Tyler Robert Goode v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
However, as we recognized in Trevino, “the viability and mode of application of [the Solem] proportionate analysis in non-death penalty cases has been questioned since the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 . . . (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder, 954 F.2d at 315–16); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755 , 757–58 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" Elida Vega Terrazas v. State
Tex. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
ANN. art. 42.12, § 23(a) (West Supp. 2016)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" Margarita Lara v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, no pet.).
discussed Cited "see" Lawrence Mireles v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (assuming without deciding that the defendant could assert a proportionality claim but finding that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate).
cited Cited "see" Destany Jenee Liles v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" Marcus S. Carter v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited "see" Frankie Wayne Nealy v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
As this court noted in Trevino, however, “the viability and mode of application of the proportionate analysis in non-death penalty cases has been questioned since the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 , 315–16 (5th Cir. 1992)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755 , 757–58 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). 6 Assuming arguendo the viability of the Solem factors, life imprisonment is not a grossly disproportionate sentence given the gravit…
cited Cited "see" Raymond Keith Hulsey v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" Raymond Keith Hulsey v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.–– Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
examined Cited "see" Christopher Blackburn A/K/A Christopher Brett Blackburn v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 , 315–16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various 1 Vera v. State, Nos. 13-05-00169, 13-05-00170-CR, 2006 WL 5181930 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 29, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 5 opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision2)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.…
examined Cited "see" Otis Ray Dawson v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 , 315–16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision6)); see Sullivan v. 5 Vera v. State, Nos. 13-05-00169, 13-05-00170-CR, 2006 WL 5181930 , *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 29, 2008, pet. ref=d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 6 See Solem v. Hel…
examined Cited "see" Joe Richard Jasso v. State (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has previously recognized that ―the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court‘s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).‖ Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref‘d) (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin…
examined Cited "see" Valentine Reyes Jr. v. State (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that ―the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).‖ Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion an…
discussed Cited "see" Jody Byrum v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.); Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1986, pet. ref'd)).
examined Cited "see" Joey Garza, Jr. AKA Joey A. Garza AKA Joey Garcia Garza, Jr. AKA Amouse Reyna v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that “the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision5)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of defendant's sentence unde…
examined Cited "see" Joey Garza, Jr. AKA Joey A. Garza AKA Joey Garcia Garza, Jr. AKA Amouse Reyna v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Trevino , 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision (5) )); see Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of defendant's sentence un…
examined Cited "see" Joe Angel Zavala v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that “the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 3 Vera v. State, Nos. 13-05-169, 170-CR, 2006 W L 5181930, at *3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Aug. 29, 2008, pet. ref’d) (m em . op., not designated for publication). 3 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision4)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d …
examined Cited "see" Joe Angel Zavala v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991)." Trevino , 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision (4) )); see Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportionality of defendant's sentence un…
examined Cited "see" Armando Davila v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that “the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).” Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision)); see Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportion…
examined Cited "see" Armando Davila v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court has recognized that "the viability and mode of application of proportionate analysis . . . has been questioned since the Supreme Court's decision in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)." Trevino , 174 S.W.3d at 928 (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing the various opinions issued in Harmelin and their impact on the Solem decision)); see Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (discussing the implications of the Harmelin opinion and reviewing the proportional…
cited Cited "see" John Andrew Myers v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State, 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" John Andrew Myers v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d 755, 757-58 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jerry L. SULLIVAN, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
13-97-867-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Aug 20, 1998.
975 S.W.2d 755
1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5230
1998 WL 541088
Randall E. Pretzer, Corpus Christi, for Appellant., Carlos Valdez, District Attorney, Corpus Christi, for the State.
Seerden, Hinojosa, Chavez.
Cited by 85 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

SEERDEN, Chief Justice.

A jury found appellant Jerry Sullivan guilty of burglary of a habitation and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years, probated for ten years. Sentence was imposed in accordance with the jury’s findings on September 16, 1987. On September 4, 1997, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. Sullivan pleaded true to four of the alleged violations. Upon his plea, and after a hearing, the trial court revoked Sullivan’s community supervision and sentenced Sullivan to five years imprisonment.

In a single point of error, Sullivan complains that, having served all but twelve days of his ten year term of community supervision, the punishment assessed by the trial court was disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations alleged in the State’s motion to revoke. This, Sullivan concludes, is in contradiction to the protections inherent in the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. We disagree.

We note at the outset that the five year sentence, although assessed as a result of the State’s motion to revoke, corresponds to the 1987 burglary of a habitation charge. Thus, any review would evaluate the proportionality of the five year sentence to the original charge, not to the violations of Sullivan’s term of community supervision. Furthermore, to the extent Sullivan’s argument equates the time served on his term of community supervision with punishment, we must disagree. Such contention is certainly rejected by the language of the code of criminal procedure. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23(a) (Vernon Supp.1998) (following revocation, judge may dispose of matter as if there had been no community supervision); Krumboltz v. State, 945 S.W.2d[*757] 176, 177 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

Sullivan, in support of his argument, urges this 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. 3001. However, a strict application of the Solem test has been questioned since the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). Several Texas courts of appeals, in discussing the applicability of Solem, observed that although five members of the Supreme Court in Harmelin rejected application of the three-factor test, seven of the justices in Harmelin supported an Eighth Amendment prohibition against grossly disproportionate sentences. See Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, no pet.); Puga v. State, 916 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (citing McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 849, 113 S.Ct. 146, 121 L.Ed.2d 98 (1992)); Mathews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 668-69 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd); Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd); Lackey v. State, 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, these courts applied some form of proportionality analysis.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in interpreting Harmelin, first reviews the sentence to determine whether it is grossly disproportionate to the crime. McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316. Only if the court finds the sentence grossly disproportionate will it then consider the remaining factors of the Solem test. Id. This test was applied by the San Antonio, Beaumont, and Dallas Courts of Appeals. Puga, 916 S.W.2d at 549-50; Mathews, 918 S.W.2d at 669; Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 421. The Tyler and Texarkana Courts of Appeals evaluated the proportionality of a sentence to the crime under the elements of Solem. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d at 15; Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 665.

Assuming, arguendo, the viability of a proportionality review, [1] application of either test leads us to the conclusion that Sullivan’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense he committed. As noted above, Sullivan was found guilty of burglary of a habitation. Burglary of a habitation was, at the time of Sullivan’s conviction, a first degree felony. Act of June 14,1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 399, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 927 (amended 1993) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 1994)). At the time Sullivan’s community supervision was revoked, burglary of a habitation had been reduced to a second degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 1994). A felony of the first degree is punishable by a term of imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than ninety-nine years or less than five years, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 1994). A felony of the second degree is punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty years or less than two years. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33 (Vernon 1994). The five year term imposed by the trial court, aside from representing only one-half of the sentence originally assessed by the jury and imposed by the trial court in 1987, is well below the maximum term of imprisonment permitted for a second degree felony, and represents the minimum term of incarceration for a felony of the first degree. In light of the nature of Sullivan’s offense, the punishment range available, and the reduction of the sentence, we find that Sullivan’s five year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his crime. This finding ends any analysis under McGruder. In continuing the analysis using the Solem factors, we note that there is no evidence in the appellate record of the sentences imposed on criminals in Texas or other jurisdictions who committed a similar[*758] offense; therefore, we may not engage in a comparative evaluation. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d at 15.

Accordingly, we hold that under either test, Sullivan’s sentence does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the Eighth Amendment. Sullivan’s sole point of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1

. Appellant, in his brief, acknowledges that under Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex. Crim.App.1983), an appeal prefaced on the grounds of disproportionate punishment may be frivolous. In light of our holding, we need not express an opinion on this issue.