Cesar Rocha v. State
464 S.W.3d 410
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- In Feb 2010 Officer J.P. Cruz observed a Ford Expedition parked in an apartment complex parking lot at night with engine and lights on and three occupants; the area had a history of narcotics activity.
- Cruz approached the vehicle (drawing his gun for safety, pointed down), smelled a strong odor of marijuana, had occupants exit and handcuffed passengers; Rocha admitted marijuana was in the center console and officers recovered it in multiple small bags.
- Rocha was first charged and pleaded guilty in Apr 2010 pursuant to a plea bargain; after a successful Padilla habeas challenge the conviction was vacated and the State re-filed the information in 2013 following a dismissal/nonsuit and set the case for trial.
- Rocha moved to dismiss the re-filed information, to suppress the evidence/statements, and requested an article 38.23 jury instruction; the trial court denied all motions and the jury convicted Rocha of possession (>2 oz & <4 oz).
- On appeal Rocha argued the State’s re-filing violated due process and articles 29.03/29.04, the detention/search violated the Fourth Amendment, he was entitled to an article 38.23 jury instruction, and the trial judge was biased; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rocha's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Re-filing after dismissal — Due process / arts. 29.03 & 29.04 | Re-filing after the State nonsuited and immediately re-filed was fundamentally unfair and violated due process and statutory continuance limits | The nonsuit and immediate re-filing did not implicate pre-indictment due process; articles 29.03/29.04 do not bar refiling after dismissal | Court: Affirmed — re-filing did not violate due process or the cited statutes |
| Suppression — Fourth Amendment (detention/search) | Officer Cruz’s approach/drawing of gun and conduct amounted to an unlawful seizure/search; evidence should be suppressed | Officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate based on specific, articulable facts and probable cause to search once he smelled marijuana | Court: Affirmed — detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and odor provided probable cause to search |
| Article 38.23 jury instruction | Rocha asserted disputed factual issues (e.g., whether window was open, officer displayed gun, reasonable suspicion) making an instruction required | Disputed facts were either immaterial or uncontested; legality (reasonable suspicion) is a legal question for the court, not a jury | Court: Affirmed — no material factual issue presented that would require an article 38.23 instruction |
| Judicial impartiality / due process | Trial judge’s comments and failure to hold pretrial hearing on suppression showed bias | Court’s interjections were within discretion to manage proceedings and clarify; no obligatory pretrial ruling required; presumption of impartiality stands | Court: Affirmed — Rocha failed to show clear bias; proceedings were impartial |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective-assistance habeas context regarding collateral immigration consequences)
- Krizan–Wilson v. State, 354 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standards for reviewing motions to dismiss re: delay/due process)
- United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 348 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1965) (re-prosecution after jury’s implied rejection found fundamentally unfair — distinguished)
- Woodard v. State, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (framework for consensual encounters vs. detentions and burdens of proof)
- Jordan v. State, 394 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause to search vehicle)
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requirements for an article 38.23 jury instruction)