Adrian Jerome Parker v. State

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00134-CR ______________________________ ADRIAN PARKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 35826-A Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Adrian Parker has appealed from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to the third-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (Vernon 2003). Parker was sentenced by the trial court to seven years' imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34 (Vernon 2003). On appeal to this Court, Parker contends, in a single point of error, that the punishment assessed is disproportionate to his crime. Parker's motion for new trial contains a contention that the sentence was disproportionate to the offense. A motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review. See Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523-24 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, no pet.). Texas courts have traditionally held that, as long as the punishment assessed is within the range prescribed by the Legislature in a valid statute, the punishment is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Here, Parker's sentence falls within the applicable range of two to ten years and a fine of up to $10,000.00. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.34. That does not end the inquiry. A prohibition against grossly disproportionate punishment survives under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution apart from any consideration of whether the punishment assessed is within the range established by the Legislature. U.S. Const. amend. VIII; see Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Scalia, J., plurality op.); Dunn v. State, 997 S.W.2d 885, 892 (Tex. App.--Waco 1999, pet. ref'd); Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, no pet.); Lackey v. State, 881 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd); see also Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (describing this principle as involving a "very limited, 'exceedingly rare,' and somewhat amorphous" review). Solem had suggested, as a three-part test, that an appellate court consider: (1) the gravity of the offense compared with the harshness of the penalty; (2) the sentences imposed for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. Harmelin at least raised questions about the viability of the Solem three-part test. In fact, it was subsequently held that proportionality survived Harmelin, but that the Solem three-part test did not. See McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); Dunn, 997 S.W.2d at 892; Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 420-21. In light of Harmelin, the test has been reformulated as an initial threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense with the severity of the sentence; and then, only if that initial comparison created an inference that the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense should there be a consideration of the other two Solem factors--(1) sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and (2) sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316; Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, no pet.); Dunn, 997 S.W.2d at 892; Lackey, 881 S.W.2d at 420-21. Assuming, without deciding, that Parker's sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime he committed, there is no evidence in the record from which we could compare his sentence to the sentences imposed on other persons in Texas or on persons in other jurisdictions who committed a similar offense. See Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 69 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd); Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664-65 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd). Without such evidence, the record before us does not support Parker's claim of demonstrable error. Cf. Jackson, 989 S.W.2d at 846 ("there is no evidence in the record reflecting sentences imposed for similar offenses on criminals in Texas or other jurisdictions by which to make a comparison"). There being no other issues before us, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: February 27, 2008 Date Decided: February 28, 2008 Do Not Publish dum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION The deal to transfer ownership of a house and to move it onto the purchaser's lot did not go as either party had initially envisioned. Freddie Lee Bailey purchased a Longview, Texas, house from professional house mover Sharward Tillison. As part of the purchase, Tillison agreed to move the house to Bailey's lot. Tillison moved the house to Bailey's lot, but later repossessed it when a dispute arose concerning payments, permits, and other particulars. Bailey sued Tillison for breach of contract, and a jury awarded Bailey $20,000.00 in damages. The trial court reduced the damages award to $9,250.00. Tillison appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's findings, that the jury was allowed to consider improper parol evidence, and that the jury's award of damages was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment because (1) the jury's findings are supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, (2) the challenged evidence was not admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule, and (3) the trial court has appropriately reduced the excessive jury award. (1) The Jury's Findings Are Supported by Legally and Factually Sufficient Evidence Tillison contends there is no evidence, or alternatively the evidence is factually insufficient, to support the jury's finding that Tillison breached the contract. Also, Tillison contends the jury's determination that Bailey did not breach the contract is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We find the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's determinations. In determining a no-evidence issue, we are to consider only the evidence and inferences that tend to support the finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. 2001); Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 450 (Tex. 1996). Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 450. More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence furnishes some reasonable basis for differing conclusions by reasonable minds about the existence of a vital fact. Rocor Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 77 S.W.3d 253, 262 (Tex. 2002). When considering a factual sufficiency challenge to a jury's verdict, we must consider and weigh all of the evidence, not just that evidence which supports the verdict. Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406–07 (Tex. 1998). We can set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust. Id.; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). We are not a fact-finder. Accordingly, we may not pass on the witnesses' credibility or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, even if the evidence would clearly support a different result. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d at 407. The jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Tillison breached the contract for the sale of the house. Tillison does not dispute that a contract existed which required him to deliver the house to Bailey's property. Nor does he dispute that, after moving it to Bailey's property, he later repossessed the house and moved it elsewhere. Rather, Tillison appears to assert that he was excused from performance because Bailey was the first to breach. He asserts Bailey violated the terms of the contract by failing to obtain a building permit, or alternatively by failing to pay Tillison in the amount and time specified in the contract. The written agreement signed by both Bailey and Tillison unambiguously states, "Buyer will get permit for building and repairs, movers will provide all others." Tillison, the seller, procured the moving permit, but Bailey, the buyer, did not get the building permit. Ordinarily, a breach of reciprocal promises in a contract by one party excuses performance by the other party. Shaw v. Kennedy, Ltd., 879 S.W.2d 240, 247 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, no pet.). In this contract, however, there is no specified deadline for obtaining a building permit. As a rule, time is not "of the essence" in performing a contract unless the contract so specifies, and a party's failure to perform by some arbitrary date not contained in the contract is not a breach of contract. HECI Exploration Co. v. Clajon Gas Co., 843 S.W.2d 622, 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, writ denied). Where a contract does not provide a time for performance, the law will imply that performance must occur within a reasonable time. Pearcy v. Envtl. Conservancy of Austin and Cent. Tex., Inc., 814 S.W.2d 243, 246 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied). What time is reasonable varies depending on the facts and circumstances as they existed when the contract was formed. Id. Factors include the nature and character of the performance required and the difficulty of accomplishing it, as well as the purpose of the agreement. Id. The jury could have reasonably concluded Bailey did not have a reasonable time to secure the building permit before Tillison removed the house. Bailey testified that he was in the process of getting the building permit when he discovered he could not get a permit on his own. A Longview city ordinance required the person applying for the building permit to be a licensed contractor. So, Tillison obtained an unsigned permit on Bailey's behalf. But before Bailey could meet with Tillison to sign the permit, Tillison removed the house from Bailey's property. The evidence suggests that Bailey tried to obtain a permit as quickly as possible. The jury could have reasonably found that Tillison first breached the contract by removing the house before Bailey had a reasonable time to fulfill his obligation to get a building permit. Tillison also contends Bailey first breached the contract by failing to pay him $6,500.00, although Tillison delivered the house to Bailey's property as originally agreed. The evidence shows, however, the two parties modified the terms of payment. Just as parties to a contract can make it originally, they may modify the contract. Mid Plains Reeves, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989, writ denied). A modification must satisfy the elements of a contract: a meeting of the minds supported by consideration. Hathaway v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 711 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Tex. 1986). Bailey testified that he contacted Tillison before he moved the house and offered to pay him $3,250.00—that is, half of the remaining sum—on delivery of the house, and pay the rest in $100.00 monthly payments. In consideration for the modification, Bailey agreed to pay Tillison $500.00 more than originally agreed, a total of $13,000.00. This agreement was memorialized in writing, reflecting a balance owed by Bailey to Tillison of $3,750.00—the total of the $3,250.00 left to be paid on the original agreement, plus the $500.00 in consideration for the modification. And Tillison delivered the house. While Tillison testified that he did not agree to a modification of the contract, he admitted that Bailey paid him the additional $3,250.00 and that he added $500.00 to the remaining balance of $3,250.00. Based on this, the jury could have concluded that Tillison agreed to the modification. Because there is evidence the parties modified the payment terms of the original contract, and evidence that Bailey fulfilled his obligation under the modified terms, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Bailey did not breach the contract by failing to pay Tillison $6,500.00 on delivery as originally agreed. By Tillison's own admission, he removed the house from Bailey's property. The jury could have concluded, under the evidence, that such action violated the terms of the modified contract. The evidence also supports a finding that Tillison was the first to breach a condition of the contract. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, including that already discussed, we find that the jury's determination is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Accordingly, we find the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury's determination that Tillison breached the contract. We also find sufficient evidence supports the jury's determination that Tillison was the first to breach the contract, thereby excusing Bailey from further performance. See Shaw, 879 S.W.2d at 247. (2) The Challenged Evidence Was Not Admitted in Violation of the Parol Evidence Rule Tillison contends the jury was improperly allowed to consider parol evidence in violation of the parol evidence rule. He first asserts the trial court should not have allowed parol evidence of the modification to the payment terms. The parol evidence rule precludes consideration of extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary, or add to the terms of an unambiguous written agreement, absent fraud, accident, or mistake. Hudson Buick, Pontiac, GMC Truck Co. v. Gooch, 7 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999, pet. denied). The general rule is that evidence which is admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule, whether objected to or not, is incompetent and without any probative force to support any finding. See, e.g., id.; Herbert v. Polly Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, 943 S.W.2d 906, 910 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); Huddleston v. Fergeson, 564 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ); see also Texarkana & Fort Smith Ry. Co. v. Brass, 260 S.W. 828, 830 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924, judgm't adopted). This is so because the parol evidence rule "is not merely a rule of procedure but is one of substantive law." Brass, 260 S.W. at 830; King v. Fordice, 776 S.W.2d 608, 612 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, writ denied). Contract modification may be proved by direct testimony, or by implication from the conduct of the parties and the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Here, Bailey did not offer testimony to vary or contradict the terms of the contract, but rather offered evidence to prove the existence of a subsequent modification to the contract. Therefore, admitting testimony and evidence relating to the modification did not violate the parol evidence rule. Tillison also asserts that the jury was improperly allowed to consider parol evidence relating to the contract provision concerning the parties' responsibilities for obtaining permits. Tillison contends that Bailey attempted to introduce evidence showing that, contrary to the plain terms of the written agreement, Tillison was responsible for securing a building permit. Tillison has not cited the record to identify the evidence of which he complains. Regardless, even if such evidence was improperly admitted, the point is immaterial. As discussed above, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Bailey was responsible for securing the building permit, in accordance with the written agreement, but did not breach because he was not allowed a reasonable time to perform his obligation. Therefore, even if we ignore any parol evidence tending to show that Tillison was subsequently made responsible for obtaining the building permit, the jury's verdict is still supported by the evidence. (3) The Trial Court Has Appropriately Reduced the Excessive Jury Award Next, Tillison asserts the jury's finding of damages was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The jury awarded Bailey $20,000.00 in damages. Tillison contends that the evidence supports an award of only $9,250.00—the amount which Bailey actually paid Tillison. But the trial court reduced the jury's award to $9,250.00, rendering this point moot. We affirm the judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: March 1, 2006 Date Decided: May 26, 2006