Castro, Johnny Gabriel, PD-0320-15

Background

Defendant Johnny Gabriel Castro was convicted of capital murder, felony murder (lesser-included), and injury to a child for the death of a seven-month-old; jury assessed life without parole for capital murder and concurrent 60-year terms on the other counts.
Trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial on October 12, 2012; appellate counsel filed an amended motion for new trial on November 1, 2012 asserting a material defense witness (Brittany Banda) had been kept from testifying because of threats and attaching Banda’s affidavit. The amended motion requested an evidentiary hearing and included a certificate stating counsel delivered a copy to the court coordinator that same day.
Appellate counsel returned November 15, 2012 with a proposed order denying the amended motion without a hearing; he handwrote a notation on that unsigned order stating the court coordinator presented it to the judge who indicated she would let the 75‑day period elapse (i.e., let the motion be overruled by operation of law). The notation was filed.
The State argued that Castro failed to timely present the amended motion to the trial court (as required by Tex. R. App. P. 21.6), so any complaint about the absence of a hearing was waived. The Third Court of Appeals agreed and held Castro did not preserve the complaint about the trial court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing.
The Third Court affirmed the capital murder and injury-to-a-child convictions, vacated the lesser-included murder conviction on double-jeopardy grounds, and declined to abate for a hearing because the record lacked sufficient evidence of timely presentment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Castro)	Held
Whether amended motion for new trial was timely presented so as to preserve right to an evidentiary hearing	Certification and counsel’s handwritten note are self-serving and insufficient to prove presentment; no judge or court-staff notation or ruling exists	Amended motion requested a hearing, set the deadline for a hearing, included a proposed setting order, counsel delivered it to the court coordinator same day, and later attempted to obtain a ruling—these acts constitute presentment	Court held presentment was not shown under controlling case law; issue not preserved for appellate review (no hearing required)
Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove knowing or intentional conduct for murder/capital murder	Evidence (statements, changing stories, medical findings) supports inference of knowing/intentional conduct	Defendant argued conduct at most reckless or criminally negligent	Court held that, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find Castro acted knowingly or intentionally; sufficiency affirmed
Whether convictions for capital murder and murder violate double jeopardy	State presumed both convictions valid	Defendant argued murder is lesser-included of capital murder and convictions/punishments cannot both stand	Court held murder is a lesser-included offense of capital murder and vacated the murder conviction/sentence (capital murder affirmed)
Whether the court should define or abolish the presentment requirement	State relied on existing case-by-case presentment jurisprudence	Defendant urged this Court to define acts that constitute presentment or abolish the requirement because current law is vague and allows courts to prevent preservation by refusing to note or sign	Third Court applied existing precedent (Stokes, Carranza, Owens, etc.) and declined to expand/alter the doctrine; remand/abate denied

Key Cases Cited

Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (unsigned notations on party-generated documents are insufficient to establish presentment; outlines acceptable proof of presentment)
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (presentment requires actual notice to trial court; lists examples but does not exhaustively define presentment)
Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (right to hearing on new-trial motion is not absolute; presentment is required)
Estrella v. State, 82 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (presentation to court coordinator who sets a case-setting form can satisfy presentment)
Butler v. State, 6 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (court coordinator’s docket entry scheduling a hearing evidenced presentment)
Owens v. State, 832 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992) (certification by counsel alone that motion was presented is insufficient to prove presentment)
Oestrick v. State, 939 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (self-serving counsel statements are inadequate to show presentment)
Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (vacatur of a lesser-included offense where the greater offense was properly convicted)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)