Arty Price v. State
03-14-00567-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Appellant Arty Price was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (family violence) in Williamson County and sentenced to 65 years and a $10,000 fine. A timely motion for new trial and supporting affidavits were filed.
- Facts at trial: victim Migdalia Peña suffered severe facial and internal injuries; prosecution presented eyewitnesses and photographic evidence; appellant was arrested wearing sandals whose tread matched bruises on the victim.
- Defense theory at trial: blame an estranged husband (Ezequiel Astacio) and impeach the victim with prior incidents at the same residence (2009 and 2011 police reports).
- Trial court limited the defense’s ability to introduce and explore the 2009 incident and excluded police reports from evidence; defense made a bill of exceptions.
- Appellant alleged multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a motion for new trial (failure to communicate, follow client strategy, investigate/present mitigation, call witnesses); trial judge requested affidavits but did not hold a hearing or rule on the motion (it was denied by operation of law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Price) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the motion for new trial | Price: motion and affidavits alleged facts not in record entitling him to a hearing on ineffective assistance and other complaints | State: submitted counsel affidavit denying allegations; trial court did not schedule an evidentiary hearing | Trial judge ordered affidavits but did not conduct a hearing or rule; motion expired by operation of law (appellant seeks reversal/remand) |
| 2) Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple alleged failures) | Price: counsel failed to communicate, ignored client strategy, failed to investigate or pursue mental-health mitigation, and failed to call proffered witnesses — affidavits support these claims and would show prejudice under Strickland | Trial counsel: avers multiple jail meetings, denies instructions to pursue alternate strategy, states experts/investigator were not warranted; says he contacted the lone named witness | Allegations in appellant’s affidavits, if true, would raise reasonable grounds for relief; appellant requests hearing or reversal/remand (trial court made no factual findings) |
| 3) Exclusion/limitation of defense evidence (prior police reports and 2009 incident) | Price: excluded reports and barred questioning about the 2009 incident deprived him of presenting a complete defense and impeaching the victim’s credibility | State: trial court limited scope as evidentiary rulings (court excluded some evidence) | Trial court limited admission of the 2009 incident and excluded reports; appellant preserved a bill of exceptions and seeks reversal as the rulings denied his right to present evidence |
| 4) Jury charge wording re: "used or exhibited a deadly weapon" | Price: requested modification to wording to avoid an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence; objection preserved | State: charged as given; trial court refused the requested rephrasing | Trial court refused proposed wording; defense objection preserved (appellant argues at least "some harm" standard applies and seeks relief) |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trambetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (right to present evidence in defense)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (due-process right to call witnesses and present a complete defense)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (exclusion of defense evidence can violate due process)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination to show bias and impeach credibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (prejudice inquiry at sentencing for failure to present mitigating evidence)
- Miller v. State, 36 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (exclusion of duress/coercion evidence can be reversible error)