Amador Fernandez v. State
03-15-00467-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- Amador Fernandez was indicted for Evading Arrest and Detention with a Vehicle; he waived a jury, pleaded not guilty, and was tried before the 119th District Court (bench trial). The judge found him guilty and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.
- Deputy Jerimie Fry observed a red pickup speeding in a residential area, activated lights and siren, pursued it through several turns, and ultimately arrested the driver after the truck stopped.
- Deputy Fry initially reported Fernandez said he did not realize he was being pursued, but after repeated questioning (including at the jail) Fernandez admitted he saw the deputy and tried to get away.
- Defense presented MHMR evidence that Fernandez had been diagnosed with intellectual disability (Vineland age-equivalent ~8.8) and witnesses testified he was susceptible to suggestion.
- Appellate brief argues: (1) indictment was sufficient; (2) overruling defense objection to the deputy’s testimony that defendant was "attempting to evade" was at most harmless; (3) trial counsel was not ineffective despite some tactical choices and failures to object; (4) evidence was legally sufficient to deny an instructed verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fernandez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment | Indictment complies with Texas Code requirements | No substantive/formal defect | Indictment sufficient |
| Admissibility of officer opinion testimony ("attempting to evade") | Officer's inference is rationally based on perception and helpful under Tex. R. Evid. 701 | Testimony was improper opinion testimony and should have been excluded | Overruling objection, if error, was harmless given bench trial and corroborating evidence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (jury waiver, failures to object) | Counsel made reasonable tactical choices (signed waiver, prepared defense) | Counsel erred by waiving jury and failing to object to leading questions and opinion testimony | Waiver and other choices presumed strategic; counsel not ineffective on record |
| Sufficiency of evidence to deny instructed verdict | Officer testimony and defendant admissions support evading element beyond reasonable doubt | Mental disability and claim he initially did not know he was pursued undermine intent | Applying Jackson v. Virginia standard, evidence was sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reaffirming Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: defer to trier of fact on conflicting inferences)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
- Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (framework for assessing whether error was harmless under federal constitutional standard)
- Del Rio v. State, 840 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (presumption that jury-waiver decision is reasonable strategic choice)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial strategy generally not second-guessed on appeal)
- Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (reviewing instructed-verdict rulings as challenges to sufficiency of the evidence)