Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robert McGruder v. Steven W. Puckettgreen2 sentences2015Texas courts have 31 adopted the disproportionality test used by the Fifth Circuit in McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313,316 (5th Cir. 1992). 2000Subsequent Texas cases construing Solem and Harmelin have concluded that a disproportionality analysis survives, and have applied the original Solem test or a modification thereof as articulated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 849 , 113 S.Ct. 146 (1992). | 5 | 5 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2015The Threshold Comparison The first step in a disproportionality analysis is a comparison of the 63 Sneed v. State, 406 S.W. 3d 638, 643 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2013, no pet.); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1004-05 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 , 115 L. 2015The Threshold Comparison The first step in a disproportionality analysis is a comparison of the 63 Sneed v. State, 406 S.W. 3d 638, 643 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2013, no pet.); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1004-05 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 , 115 L. | 2 | 5 |
Hyde v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Hyde v. State , 723 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1986, no pet.), holding that we had no authority to review the reasonableness of punishments assessed by the juries and the trial courts of this State if within the range of punishment prescribed by statute for the offense, except under a disproportionality analysis. driving while intoxicated. 2007See Hyde v. State , 723 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1986, no pet.) (holding that we had no authority to review the reasonableness of punishments assessed by the juries and the trial courts of this State if within the range of punishment prescribed by statute for the offense, except under a disproportionality analysis). ad occurred. | 2 | 2 |
Wiley v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Wiley v. State, 112 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d). 2 Rushton was known in the neighborhood. | 1 | 1 |
Joe Anthony Alvarez v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Alvarez v. State, 525 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017, pet. ref’d) (noting that the trial court heard testimony that the defendant “reoffended upon subsequent release on bond”); Gray v. State, No. 04-12-00244-CR, 2012 WL 5507106 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 14, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting that defendant’s “bond pending his trial for the instant offense was revoked after he tested positive for use of marihuana”); Leflore v. State, No. 07-10-00295-CR, 2010 WL 5128784 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 16, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., no | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523-24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Markus Ray Sneed v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The Threshold Comparison The first step in a disproportionality analysis is a comparison of the 63 Sneed v. State, 406 S.W. 3d 638, 643 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2013, no pet.); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1004-05 , 111 S. Ct. 2680 , 115 L. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Davis v. State , 947 S.W.2d 240 , 242–43 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Jordan v. State , 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Compare, e.g., Mathews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying modification of Solem test); Puga v. State , 916 S.W.2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)(same); Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd)(same); with Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying Solem test); Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Compare, e.g., Mathews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying modification of Solem test); Puga v. State , 916 S.W.2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)(same); Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd)(same); with Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying Solem test); Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Sullivan v. State , 975 S.W.2d. 755, 757 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.)(discussing history and status of disproportionality doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Compare, e.g., Mathews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying modification of Solem test); Puga v. State , 916 S.W.2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)(same); Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd)(same); with Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying Solem test); Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Puga v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Compare, e.g., Mathews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying modification of Solem test); Puga v. State , 916 S.W.2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)(same); Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd)(same); with Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying Solem test); Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Lackey v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Compare, e.g., Mathews v. State , 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying modification of Solem test); Puga v. State , 916 S.W.2d 547, 549-50 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.)(same); Lackey v. State , 881 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd)(same); with Simmons v. State , 944 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd)(applying Solem test); Davis v. State , 905 S.W.2d 655, 664 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Diaz-Galvan v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Punishment is "grossly disproportionate to a crime only when an objective comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence reveals the sentence to be extreme." Diaz-Galvan v. State , 942 S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd) (citing Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In reviewing a disproportionality claim under the federal constitution, the threshold question is whether appellant's sentence "is grossly disproportionate to the crime." Thomas v. State , 916 S.W.2d 578, 583 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 849 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Id; see Ex parte Arnold, 916 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that if the “primary effect” of sanction is remedial, then it cannot be considered punishment); Helber v. State, 915 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that Halper requires a disproportionality test under which a sanction becomes punishment when its deterrent or retributive effect far outweighs the remedial effect); Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 894 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. granted) (adopting the disproportionality test); Malone v. State, 864 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.—F | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Arnoldgreen1 sentence1996Id; see Ex parte Arnold, 916 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that if the “primary effect” of sanction is remedial, then it cannot be considered punishment); Helber v. State, 915 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that Halper requires a disproportionality test under which a sanction becomes punishment when its deterrent or retributive effect far outweighs the remedial effect); Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 894 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. granted) (adopting the disproportionality test); Malone v. State, 864 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.—F | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Tharpgreen1 sentence1996Id; see Ex parte Arnold, 916 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that if the “primary effect” of sanction is remedial, then it cannot be considered punishment); Helber v. State, 915 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that Halper requires a disproportionality test under which a sanction becomes punishment when its deterrent or retributive effect far outweighs the remedial effect); Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 894 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. granted) (adopting the disproportionality test); Malone v. State, 864 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.—F | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2022Solem, 463 U.S. at 292 ; Simpson, 488 S.W.3d at 323 . 2008Citing Solem v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277 (1983), appellant argues for a disproportionality analysis guided by objective criteria. | 6 | 1996–2022 |
Simpson, Mark Twain
green
2 sentences2022Solem, 463 U.S. at 292 ; Simpson, 488 S.W.3d at 323 . 2018Without a record of the initial plea proceedings, we cannot determine what evidence the trial court may have considered relevant to the disproportionality analysis, including “harm caused or threatened to the victim, the culpability of the offender, [or] the offender’s prior adjudicated and unadjudicated offenses.” Simpson, 488 S.W.3d at 323 . | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Chandler v. Jones
green
2 sentences2000Subsequent Texas cases construing Solem and Harmelin have concluded that a disproportionality analysis survives, and have applied the original Solem test or a modification thereof as articulated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 849 , 113 S.Ct. 146 (1992). 1999In reviewing a disproportionality claim under the federal constitution, the threshold question is whether appellant's sentence "is grossly disproportionate to the crime." Thomas v. State , 916 S.W.2d 578, 583 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (citing McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 849 (1992)). | 2 | 1999–2000 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1995We therefore applied the disproportionality analysis of Halper, 490 U.S. at 449 , 109 S.Ct. at 1902 , to determine if prosecution for the criminal offenses would subject the defendant to double jeopardy. 1995We therefore applied the disproportionality analysis of Halper, 490 U.S. at 449 , 109 S.Ct. at 1902 , to determine if prosecution for the criminal offenses would subject the defendant to double jeopardy. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
McGruder v. Puckett
green
1 sentence2000Subsequent Texas cases construing Solem and Harmelin have concluded that a disproportionality analysis survives, and have applied the original Solem test or a modification thereof as articulated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in McGruder v. Puckett , 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 849 , 113 S.Ct. 146 (1992). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Jerry Wayne Tilley, and Susan Wells Tilley, Tommy Ross Anderson and Sarah Jane Anderson
green
2 sentences1996Id. 1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Helber v. State
green
1 sentence1996Id; see Ex parte Arnold, 916 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that if the “primary effect” of sanction is remedial, then it cannot be considered punishment); Helber v. State, 915 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet. h.) (holding that Halper requires a disproportionality test under which a sanction becomes punishment when its deterrent or retributive effect far outweighs the remedial effect); Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 894 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. granted) (adopting the disproportionality test); Malone v. State, 864 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Tex.App.—F | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.