## Facts

- Ronald Gene Hookie, a commercial log-truck driver with decades of experience, operated a loaded log truck.
- About one week before a fatal crash, a Texas state trooper conducted a roadside safety inspection and found multiple violations, including air brakes seriously out of adjustment.
- The trooper placed the truck “out of service,” meaning it could not lawfully be operated until repairs were made, and testified the driver had a statutory duty to inspect the truck daily, including the brakes.
- Hookie told the trooper he would adjust the brakes himself; adjusting brakes was described as common in the industry.
- About a week later, Hookie drove the same truck with a full load of logs and approached a signalized intersection.
- Hookie failed to stop at a red light, entered the intersection, and collided with a pickup truck carrying four occupants; Laurie Ann Davis died from injuries sustained in the collision.
- At the scene, Hookie told officers he had no brakes and attempted to stop by downshifting (“gearing down”) rather than using service brakes.
- After the crash, the trooper inspected the truck again and found the brakes were even further out of adjustment than during the earlier inspection, along with additional mechanical and safety problems.
- Hookie claimed he performed a visual inspection the morning of the collision, but the post-crash condition of the brakes supported an inference of inadequate inspection and/or lack of repair.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove criminal negligence for criminally negligent homicide.
2. Whether the state-jail-felony sentencing and community-supervision scheme was unconstitutional and, if so, whether Hookie had standing to challenge it.
3. Whether a one-year state-jail sentence was grossly disproportionate or otherwise unconstitutional, and whether the claim was preserved for appellate review.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction for criminally negligent homicide and the one-year state-jail sentence.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient for a rational jury to find criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The constitutional challenge to the sentencing scheme was rejected because the classification had a rational basis and Hookie lacked standing under the circumstances.
- The disproportionality claim was not preserved due to the lack of a timely objection or motion for new trial; alternatively, the sentence fell within the statutory range and was not shown to be unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal negligence requires proof the defendant ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and the failure to perceive that risk must be a gross deviation from ordinary care under the circumstances.
- In assessing criminal negligence for fatal vehicle incidents, prior notice of a dangerous mechanical condition, the driver’s legal duty to inspect, and continued operation of the vehicle despite the defect can support a finding of gross deviation.
- A constitutional challenge to a statutory sentencing classification generally fails if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, and the challenger must show standing by demonstrating the statute’s complained-of operation against the defendant.
- A disproportionality or cruel-and-unusual-punishment complaint is generally forfeited on appeal if not raised in the trial court by contemporaneous objection or an appropriate post-trial motion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hookie’s criminally negligent homicide conviction because evidence of prior warning, statutory inspection duties, worsening brake conditions, and his admission of brake failure supported a jury finding of criminal negligence, and it rejected sentencing and proportionality challenges based on rational-basis review, standing, and error preservation.


Hookie v. State, 136 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. ref’d)