Billie Jo Rivers v. State ( 2005 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00054-CR

______________________________

BILLIE JO RIVERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 32,340-A

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Billie Jo Rivers pled guilty to charges of delivery of more than 28 grams but less than 200 grams of a controlled substance and elected to have a jury assess punishment. On January 25, 2005, the jury found Rivers guilty and assessed a punishment of seventeen years' imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine. Rivers now appeals the sentence imposed for this conviction. She contends the sentence imposed is disproportionate to her offense. For reasons described in companion case Rivers v. State, cause number 06-05-00053-CR and set forth below, we affirm.

Sentence Not Excessive or Disproportionate to Offense

            Rivers was convicted of delivery of more than 28 grams but less than 200 grams of a penalty group three controlled substance. Delivery of this amount of a penalty group three controlled substance is a second-degree felony, carrying a sentencing range of between two and twenty years and a fine of up to $10,000.00. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.114(c) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.33 (Vernon 2003).

            Rivers brings forth the same arguments regarding this conviction as she did in cause number 06-05-00053-CR. For the same reasons, we conclude the sentence imposed here was not grossly disproportionate to the offense committed. See Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). We add that, not only does this transaction involve a greater amount of prescription medication, the record also shows that this second drug transaction took place in the presence of children who Rivers identified as her great-nephews.

            Considering the record in this case, we cannot say the seventeen-year sentence was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. We overrule Rivers' sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          October 28, 2005

Date Decided:             November 4, 2005

Do Not Publish