Aldo Ivan Blanco v. State
08-15-00082-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Aldo Ivan Blanco was convicted of burglary of a habitation; trial court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment but suspended execution and placed him on ten years’ community supervision. Appellant timely moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Incident: on May 17, 2014, victim Nydia Garcia reported Blanco forced entry into her apartment, assaulted her, and bruised her arms; she identified Blanco at trial. Blanco testified he was invited in, had consensual sex, and left when asked. Jury convicted.
- At the new-trial hearing Blanco presented defense counsel Jeff Allder’s affidavit and later Allder testified admitting multiple alleged failures and agreeing a new trial was warranted, but he could not say what effect those omissions had on the outcome.
- Blanco raised eleven ineffective-assistance sub-issues on appeal (failure to request a mistake-of-fact instruction; failure to file discovery under art. 39.14; failure to translate 911 call; failure to appoint an investigator; failure to obtain phone records; failure to view crime scene; failure to file motion in limine re: criminal history; failure to admit video statement; failure to prepare and admonish Blanco); the court limited discussion to Issues 1, 2, and 11 and found Issues 3–10 waived for inadequate briefing.
- The court applied the Strickland standard, found no prejudice from failure to request a mistake-of-fact instruction (jury necessarily rejected Blanco’s consent story), rejected the Article 39.14 discovery claim (State’s disclosure obligations under subsection (h) are independent and there is no constitutional right to broad witness lists), found no cumulative error, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to request mistake-of-fact instruction | Blanco: counsel should have requested instruction negating culpable mental state because he believed he was invited in | State: jury already had to resolve consent and implicitly rejected Blanco’s story; instruction unnecessary and no prejudice | Affirmed — no reasonable probability outcome would differ; no Strickland prejudice |
| 2. Failure to file discovery under Art. 39.14 | Blanco: counsel’s failure relieved State of disclosure obligations and prevented obtaining witness info and evidence | State: Article 39.14(h) disclosure duties are independent; no general constitutional right to witness list; absent court order State not required to list witnesses | Affirmed — claim misplaced; no error |
| 3–10. Omissions (translation, investigator, phone records, scene visit, in limine, video admission, preparation, admonishment) | Blanco: these failures deprived him of defenses/evidence and prejudiced outcome | State: issues inadequately briefed and therefore waived; no developed argument on prejudice | Waived for inadequate briefing; not reviewed |
| 11. Cumulative error | Blanco: combined effect of counsel’s errors requires new trial | State: no multiple errors proven | Affirmed — no errors found, so no cumulative harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard)
- Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Crim.App.) (applying Strickland in Texas)
- Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.Crim.App.) (deficient performance/prejudice required)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.) (presumption of reasonable assistance when record silent)
- Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59 (Tex.Crim.App.) (presumption counsel’s performance within reasonable range)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.) (ineffective assistance standards)
- Bruno v. State, 845 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Crim.App.) (mistake-of-fact instruction unnecessary where jury must disbelieve defendant to convict)
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex.Crim.App.) (need to show reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (no general constitutional right to pretrial disclosure of all adverse witnesses)
- Ex parte Pruett, 207 S.W.3d 767 (Tex.Crim.App.) (due process requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence but not general witness lists)
- Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.Crim.App.) (no cumulative error unless multiple errors shown)