Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-01-2022

Case Style:

Natalie Dionne Nance a/k/a Natalie Denise Nance v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 02-21-00157-CR

Judge: Bonnie Sudderth

Court:

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

On appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph W. Spence
Dallas Andersen

Defendant's Attorney: Fort Worth, Texas - Best Criminal_Defense
Lawyer Directory




Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.


Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement


Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800


Description:

Fort Worth, Texas – Criminal Defense lawyer represented Appellant with fraudulent use or possession of identifying information.

.

After pleading guilty to fraudulent use or possession of identifying information,
see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51, and to possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) of 4 grams or more and less than 200 grams, see Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (d), Appellant Natalie Nance was placed on deferred
adjudication. At a later probation revocation hearing, Appellant was adjudicated guilty
of both offenses, and she was sentenced to a 6-month term of confinement for the
fraudulent use or possession of identifying information offense and a 5-year term of
confinement for the possession of methamphetamine.
Nance raises one point on appeal—that the sentence assessed was grossly
disproportionate to the offense and therefore violative of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Because Nance forfeited her
complaint on appeal by failing to preserve error for our review, we affirm.
We have consistently held that to preserve error on a grossly disproportionate
sentence complaint, a defendant must raise that complaint in the trial court at the time
the sentence was imposed or, at the latest, in a motion for new trial.1
Sample v. State,
1Several of our sister courts have also so held. See Caudill v. State, No. 07-19-
00331-CR, 2021 WL 2979036, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication); Simmons v. State, No. 03-14-00707-CR, 2017 WL
1130372, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); Noland v. State, 264 S.W.3d 144, 151–52 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, pet ref’d); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
3
405 S.W.3d 295, 304–05 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet ref’d); Russell v. State, 341
S.W.3d 526, 527–28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no. pet.); Laboriel-Guity v. State,
336 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet ref’d); Kim v. State, 283
S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d). Here, Nance did neither.
Error, if any, was forfeited.

Outcome: Having held that error was not preserved for our review, we overrule Nance’s
sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: