Whether the Eighth Amendment requires retroactive application of a court decision finding a sentencing enhancement inapplicable, thereby decreasing the punishment range

ISSUES PRESENTED Petitioner pled guilty to three indictments alleging cruelty to non-livestock animals. Normally, the punishment range is for a state jail felony, six months to two years incarceration. The State alleged she used a deadly weapon in each case. Use of a deadly weapon during a commission of a state jail felony increases the punishment range to a third degree felony, 2-10 years incarceration. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to 10 years incarceration on each case. Subsequently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the deadly weapon enhancement does not apply to non-humans. Petitioner then filed a pro se subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus asserting her sentence was illegal due to application of the deadly weapon enhancement. The State and the trial court recommended relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief in all three applications because Petitioner did not show the case holding the inapplicability of the deadly weapon enhancement was retroactive. The issue presented to this Court is: When a statutory punishment enhancement is found inapplicable to a class of offenses, thereby decreasing the punishment range from 2-10 years to 180 days to two years incarceration, does the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment require the holding be retroactive. i