Ceasar Lakendrick Russi v. State
14-14-00398-CR
| Tex. App. | May 13, 2015Background
- Appellant Ceasar Lakendrick Russi was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault; sentences: 60 years (robbery) and 20 years (assault), plus a $10,000 fine.
- Facts: appellant approached Zoila Quintanilla with a pistol, forced her from a Suburban, a struggle ensued, and later shot Isaias Quintanilla in the head during an encounter while victims pursued him; Isaias suffered severe injuries.
- Identification and physical evidence: victims identified appellant from photo arrays; officers recovered a Glock case with appellant’s fingerprint during a consent search of his apartment.
- Procedural posture: appellant appealed, raising three issues focused on punishment-phase matters and the denial of a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to call alibi witnesses; failure to cross-examine punishment witnesses) and an asserted improper judicial comment in response to a jury note about concurrent sentencing.
- At punishment the State presented three witnesses describing victim trauma; defense counsel did not cross-examine them. The jury sent a note asking about concurrent sentencing; the trial judge consulted counsel and read statutory law on concurrent sentences to the jury, to which counsel had no objection.
- The trial court denied appellant’s motion for new trial after affidavits and a hearing; this appeal challenges that denial and the other punishment-phase rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Russi) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call alibi witnesses (motion for new trial) | Trial counsel was deficient for not calling alibi witnesses (two affidavits claim appellant was with them at relevant time), entitling him to a new trial | Counsel’s noncalling was strategic: witness recollections were inconsistent/weak and prior jury found similar evidence not credible; appellant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice | Denial of the motion for new trial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; trial strategy reasonable and no Strickland prejudice shown |
| 2. Whether the trial court improperly commented on weight of evidence by answering a jury note about concurrent sentencing (Art. 38.05) | Court’s response conveyed bias toward higher punishment and thus violated Article 38.05 | The court correctly informed jury of applicable law (Penal Code §3.03); defense counsel had no objection at trial, so complaint is unpreserved and inadequately briefed; even if preserved, informing jury about concurrent sentencing is permissible | Issue not preserved and inadequately briefed; held against appellant — no reversible error |
| 3. Whether counsel was ineffective for not cross-examining punishment-phase victim witnesses | Failure to cross-examine was deficient performance that prejudiced appellant’s punishment outcome | Decision not to cross-examine is legitimate trial strategy (risk of bolstering sympathetic witnesses); appellant cannot show what impeachment would have produced or resulting prejudice | Claim rejected — strong presumption of reasonable strategy and no showing of Strickland prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (applies Strickland and presumption of reasonable strategy)
- Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (cross-examination decisions fall within trial strategy)
- Gordon v. State, 633 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (concurrent sentencing law may be appropriate for jury consideration during punishment)
- Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (judicial comment claims ordinarily must be preserved at trial)
- Lyle v. State, 418 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (failure to preserve judicial comment complaint by objection at trial)
- Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial: abuse of discretion)
- Alexander v. State, 282 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (deference to trial court’s credibility and strategy findings when reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)