Alfredo Lara v. State
01-15-00472-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 24, 2015Background
- Alfredo Lara pled guilty to serious bodily injury to a child and admitted two deadly-weapon enhancements; after a PSI and punishment hearing the trial court sentenced him to 40 years' confinement.
- Victim (“John”) suffered significant brain injury and ongoing developmental/medical needs; appellant admitted throwing the infant into a car seat multiple times.
- Lara filed a timely motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to investigate/present mitigating evidence) and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court set a hearing for January 20, 2015 — past the 75-day period to rule on a motion for new trial — and the motion was overruled by operation of law. Lara had requested that January date from the court coordinator.
- The State argues Lara waived any complaint about the lack of a timely hearing because he failed to schedule or object to the untimely date; it also contends the motion’s allegations (regarding investigation of records, expert retention, parenting/anger-management course evidence, psychological testing, and drug tests) were either conclusory or determinable from the record and thus did not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal should be abated/remanded so trial court holds an evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial | Lara: trial court failed to hold required hearing on his motion for new trial; abatement/remand necessary | State: Lara waived complaint by requesting/accepting a hearing date outside the 75-day window and made no effort to obtain a timely hearing | Held for State: complaint waived; motion overruled by operation of law because hearing occurred after 75-day period |
| Whether motion for new trial alleged sufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims | Lara: counsel failed to investigate/present mitigating evidence (medical/CPS records, expert, parenting/anger-management completion, psych evaluation, drug tests) | State: allegations are conclusory or are determinable from the record; no affidavits or proof showing what missing evidence would have established or how outcome would differ | Held for State: motion failed to show reasonable grounds or non-record matters warranting a hearing; no abuse of discretion in denying a hearing |
| Whether record supports claim that counsel’s omissions prejudiced outcome at punishment | Lara: additional mitigating evidence would have led to a lesser sentence or probation | State: trial court indicated it would not reduce sentence merely for child-support concerns; appellant did not explain how the omitted evidence would have changed the result | Held for State: appellant did not establish prejudice required under Strickland to warrant relief |
| Whether appellate court can excuse procedural default and remand for new punishment hearing | Lara: requests remand/new punishment hearing as alternative relief | State: appellant provides no authority or developed argument; procedural rules and authority preclude relief absent preserved error or adequate record | Held for State: remand/new hearing not warranted on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court lacked authority to grant motion for new trial after the 75-day period)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (hearing required only if motion raises matters not determinable from the record and shows reasonable grounds)
- Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (conclusory affidavits/factual allegations insufficient to require hearing on ineffective-assistance claim)
- Crowell v. State, 949 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (party presenting motion for new trial bears burden to ensure hearing is set within court’s jurisdiction)
- King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (motions alleging ineffective assistance must be supported by affidavits specifying facts to avoid fishing expeditions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective-assistance claims: deficient performance and prejudice)