Dennis Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00158-CR _________________ DENNIS WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________ __ ___ __ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-08336 _______________________________________________________________ _____ _ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain, Dennis Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(a)(2),(b) (West 2011). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Williams on community supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to revoke. After finding three of the alleged violations to be true, the trial court revoked the unadjudicated community supervision, found Williams guilty, and sentenced him to seventy-five years in prison. In two issues, Williams argues his punishment was constitutionally disproportionate and unreasonable under the Eighth 1 Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Tex. const. art. I, § 13. Williams did not object when the trial court pronounced sentence, and he did not make a specific argument regarding these complaints in a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (To preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely request, objection, or motion that states the grounds for the ruling with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint.). The Eighth Amendment provides that [e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 1 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; see generally Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 1420-21, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) (The Fourteenth Amendment made the Eighth Amendment s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applicable to the states.). The punishment range for aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, is life imprisonment or imprisonment for any term not more than ninety-nine years or less than five years, plus a fine of up to $10,000. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b). When the punishment assessed is within the range authorized by the Legislature in a valid statute, generally the punishment is not considered excessive, cruel, or unusual. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). 1 Williams does not argue that the Texas Constitution affords greater protection than the United States Constitution. 2 Williams s seventy-five-year sentence falls within the range of punishment authorized by statute. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b). Even if the issues were preserved for appellate review, the issues do not raise error requiring reversal of the trial court s judgment. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814; Harris, 656 S.W.2d at 486; Jordan, 495 S.W.2d at 952. In Solem, the United States Supreme court set forth a three-pronged test for analyzing proportionality, under which the court should consider (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); see also Mathews v. State, 918 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1996, pet. ref d); Puga v. State, 916 S.W.2d 548-549 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.); McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992). The sentence in this case is within the range the Legislature has determined constitutes an appropriate punishment for this kind of crime. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 29.03(b). Williams provided no information comparing his sentence with those imposed against other defendants in Texas and in other jurisdictions for similar offenses. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. Even if Williams s issues are properly before this Court, nothing in this record establishes that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 290-91; McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316. 3 We overrule Williams s issues and affirm the trial court s judgment. AFFIRMED. ___________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on July 8, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 10, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
