Ana Trujillo v. State
01-14-00397-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 30, 2015Background
- Defendant Ana Trujillo (aka Ana Fox) was convicted of murder for repeatedly striking Stefan Andersson with a high-heeled shoe; jury assessed life imprisonment and a deadly-weapon finding.
- Events: June 8–9, 2013 — argument after a night out, physical fight in Andersson’s condo; Andersson was beaten, had severe head/facial trauma, and died; defendant called 911 and gave a recorded statement admitting she was on top of him and struck him with her heel.
- Post-trial: defendant filed notice of appeal; dispute arose over the timeframe for preparing/filing a motion for new trial because trial counsel moved to withdraw around the same time appellate counsel was appointed.
- Trial-phase issues on appeal: (1) whether defendant was unrepresented during the critical 30-day window for a motion for new trial; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after the prosecutor elicited testimony referencing an alleged extraneous biting incident; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for calling psychologist Julia Babcock only during punishment (sudden-passion mitigation) rather than during guilt (self-defense context).
- Trial court responses: counsel withdrawal and appointment dates in the record showed overlapping representation; the court sustained an objection to the extraneous-offense question and instructed the jury to disregard; extensive defense effort in guilt phase (witnesses, expert pathologist, self-defense demonstrator) noted in record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Trujillo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the motion-for-new-trial window | Record shows retained trial counsel remained counsel until court granted withdrawal; appellate counsel appointed before withdrawal — presumption of representation not rebutted | Appellant contends she was effectively without counsel during the critical period and appellate process should be abated/remanded | State: presumption of continued representation stands; appellant failed to rebut — point overruled |
| 2. Denial of mistrial for prosecutor’s reference to extraneous biting incident | The trial court promptly sustained objection, instructed jury to disregard, and written charge limited extraneous-offense consideration — curative measures sufficient; similar evidence appeared elsewhere without objection | Appellant claims prosecutor’s question introduced highly prejudicial extraneous-offense evidence and warranted mistrial | State: curative instructions and other admission of similar evidence cured any harm; denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for not calling psychologist in guilt phase | Trial record is silent on counsel’s strategic reasons; plausible strategy existed (use expert for punishment mitigation sudden passion rather than to support self-defense at guilt); record shows extensive guilt-phase defensive efforts | Appellant says expert testimony would have contextualized her subjective fear and affected self-defense analysis (reasonable apprehension) | State: no deficient performance shown and no reasonable probability of different outcome — Strickland not satisfied |
| 4. Prejudice under Strickland (impact on conviction/sentence) | Strength of State’s guilt evidence and breadth of defense tactics make it unlikely Babcock’s guilt-phase testimony would have changed verdict | Appellant argues expert would alter juror view on "reasonable apprehension" and undermine murder conviction | State: overwhelming evidence and defense presentation negate reasonable probability of different outcome — no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (presumption that trial counsel continues representation during motion-for-new-trial period)
- Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defendant must affirmatively prove absence of counsel during post-trial critical stages)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (prompt instruction to disregard generally cures error from improper question about extraneous offenses)
- Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of mistrial)