Apolinar Marquez Camposano v. State
01-15-00041-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 10, 2015Background
- Appellant Apolinar Marquez Camposano pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 2008 and received a 30-year sentence after an open plea with a 30-year cap. An out-of-time appeal was later granted via habeas application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- At the scene, Detective Landrum encountered Camposano handcuffed in a patrol car; Camposano made incriminating statements (e.g., he shot his wife because she made him mad) during an on-scene interview that was recorded (patrol-car audio) and a subsequent jail interview whose audio failed.
- The couple’s two young boys witnessed the shooting and later reported seeing Appellant shoot their mother; the boys’ trauma and the victim’s sister’s testimony about their therapy were elicited at punishment.
- Evidence at punishment included autopsy/scene photographs, a presentence investigation (PSI) report (admitted over defense objection alleging inaccuracies), and testimony about Camposano’s immigration status, drinking that night, prior convictions, family background, and plans for the children and property.
- Trial counsel did not object to several prosecitorial questions eliciting hearsay or leading testimony, did not suppress the on-scene interview, and did not introduce contrary evidence to the PSI; Appellant waived an interpreter while testifying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of autopsy/scene photographs | State: photos accurately depict body/scene and are relevant | Camposano: (no objection at trial) — any objection now is waived | Court: admissible; no preserved error since defense made no objection |
| Lawfulness/admissibility of on-scene custodial statements | State: Landrum testified Camposano spoke freely and admitted shooting; waiver of rights implied | Camposano: statements made while detained in patrol car; no Miranda admonition shown, so suppression could have been sought | Court: record undeveloped and counsel failed to object; not reversible on direct appeal—better raised via habeas ineffective-assistance claim |
| Prosecutor’s improper/leading/hearsay questioning | State: elicited testimony relevant to victim/children and statements to officers | Camposano: questions elicited hearsay (children’s statements, therapist hearsay) and improper opinion/leading questions; counsel failed to object | Court: errors unpreserved due to lack of objection; ineffective-assistance avenue available but direct appeal record inadequate to prove prejudice |
| Admission and reliance on PSI report | State: PSI was properly admitted; counsel reviewed PSI and did not present counter-evidence | Camposano: PSI may contain inaccuracies and defendant did not personally review 48 hours prior | Court: statutory requirement satisfied by counsel having reviewed PSI; objection noted but absence of contrary evidence means no reversible error on direct appeal; can be raised in habeas ineffective-assistance claim |
| Waiver of interpreter | State: defendant knowingly waived interpreter during testimony | Camposano: possible inadequate foundation for waiver given earlier use of interpreter | Court: waiver found knowing and voluntary on the record; no appealable error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues when seeking to withdraw)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims are typically more properly raised in collateral proceedings)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (direct-appeal record often insufficient to adjudicate ineffective-assistance claims)
- Garcia v. State, 429 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (a defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive right to an interpreter)