Cardarelli v. State

No. 02-14-00405-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 2015) (mem. op., not designated for publication) · Second Court of Appeals of Texas at Fort Worth · September 14, 2015 · No. 02-14-00405-CR

Summary

This document is a petition for discretionary review filed by Mark Massimo Cardarelli in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. It challenges the affirmance of his convictions and concurrent nine-year sentences for possession of child pornography, arguing that the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence and imposed cruel and unusual punishment. The petition identifies Texas Court of Appeals cause number 02-14-00405-CR and seeks reversal and remand.

Court
Second Court of Appeals of Texas at Fort Worth
Writing for the Court
Lee Gabriel; Walker; Meier; Gabriel
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
September 14, 2015
Docket number
02-14-00405-CR
Procedural posture
Appeal from convictions and concurrent nine-year sentences for three counts of possession of child pornography following guilty pleas.
Standard of review
Complaints on appeal must be preserved by a timely objection or other request stating the grounds with sufficient specificity under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. A sentence within the statutory range is generally reviewed under the highly deferential rule that the factfinder's sentencing discretion is essentially unfettered, subject to exceedingly rare gross-disproportionality review under the Eighth Amendment.
Precedential value
unpublished, not designated for publication
Parties
Mark Massimo Cardarelli v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

preservation of errorsentencingcruel and unusual punishmentappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate proceduresentencingconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Cardarelli preserved his complaint that the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence at sentencing.
  2. Whether the trial court's alleged failure to consider mitigating evidence rendered the sentences cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. Cardarelli failed to preserve the complaint because he did not object to the punishment at trial and his motion for new trial did not state the complaint with sufficient specificity.
  2. The sentences did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. They fell within the statutory range, and the record showed that the trial court heard the mitigating evidence and considered it before sentencing.

Key quotations

The factfinder's discretion to impose any punishment within a prescribed statutory range is essentially "unfettered." (memorandum opinion at 3)
Subject only to an "exceedingly rare" and "somewhat amorphous" gross-disproportionality review required by the Eighth Amendment, a punishment that falls within the legislatively-prescribed range and that is based upon the factfinder's informed normative judgment is unassailable on appeal. (memorandum opinion at 3)

Factual background

Cardarelli pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing child pornography, third-degree felonies carrying a statutory imprisonment range of two to ten years. At the punishment hearing, Cardarelli, his mother, and his psychologist presented mitigating evidence, but the trial court imposed concurrent nine-year sentences.

Procedural history

Cardarelli pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of child pornography in the 43rd District Court of Parker County. After a punishment hearing at which Cardarelli, his mother, and his psychologist testified, the trial court imposed concurrent nine-year sentences. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed, and the source text includes a subsequent petition for discretionary review filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…