Christian Alberto Martinez v. State, 08-14-00130-CR

Background

Appellant (Christian Alberto Martinez) was convicted by a jury of capital murder for stabbing two victims to death; he did not contest the killings and pursued an insanity defense.
Appellant was found at the scene injured, transported to a hospital, and made statements about breaking into a random house to find a gun and "snapping." A bloody cell phone found at the scene was used to identify him.
At punishment the jury found a continuing threat but imposed life without parole rather than death; trial counsel had focused on insanity/mental impairment.
Appellant raised five issues on appeal: ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to suppress the cell phone search and failure to develop disqualification record), alleged prejudice from the State’s investigative decisions (failure to test certain blood evidence), exclusion of lay and expert testimony, and the constitutionality of life-without-parole for a defendant with intellectual disability.
The trial court denied a motion to disqualify the district attorney’s office based on assistant DAs’ presence and limited advisory role at the crime scene; the appellate court reviewed record testimony about what the assistant DAs did at the scene.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance: failure to move to suppress warrantless use of cell phone to identify defendant	Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress the phone call used to identify Appellant; suppression would have excluded evidence used to identify him and his statements	Phone was abandoned at a scene where Appellant had no expectation of privacy; using the phone to call to identify owner was not a warrantless constitutional violation; moving to suppress would have been futile	No ineffective assistance: counsel not deficient and no prejudice shown; phone use was reasonable and/or exclusion would have been futile
Ineffective assistance: failure to develop record for DA disqualification	Counsel failed to develop evidence that assistant DAs’ presence and advisory role made them advocates-and-witnesses and that caused prejudice	Record showed assistant DAs stayed in command trailer, made only advisory suggestions (e.g., numbering system), did not collect evidence or control chain of custody; no actual prejudice shown	No ineffective assistance: no breach of care and no showing of actual prejudice from DA participation
Due process / Brady-type claim for failure to test blood evidence	DA office directed not testing of a large blood spot in master bedroom, suppressing potentially exculpatory evidence and denying due process	Blood was collected and available; testing priorities and limits explained; defense could have sought testing under art. 39.14 but did not; circumstances indicate that blood likely belonged to Appellant	No due process violation: evidence not shown to be material to guilt; failure to test was not shown to prejudice outcome
Exclusion of lay witnesses for insanity defense	Excluded family/friend witnesses would have shown behavioral signs (pacing, opening/closing cabinets, auditory hallucinations) relevant to insanity	Excluded testimony was cumulative of expert testimony, potentially confusing and time-consuming; experts had already interviewed relatives and relayed same behaviors	Harmless error: exclusion proper as cumulative; comparable evidence came in through experts, so no reversible error
Limits on expert testimony re: IQ tests and statements	Trial court improperly limited Dr. Schutte from discussing other experts’ numeric IQ scores and prevented portions of his testimony about statements taken	Trial court allowed general testimony about practice effects and allowed Dr. Schutte to rely on/review other testing; limitations prevented repetitive or unnecessary detail	Any limitation was harmless: jury received necessary information about practice effects and the IQ number variance did not change insanity analysis; no reversible error
Eighth Amendment challenge to life-without-parole for intellectually disabled adult (extension of Miller/Atkins)	Appellant argues life-without-parole is unconstitutional as applied because his intellectual disability makes him the functional equivalent of a juvenile, invoking Miller and Atkins principles	Appellant did not preserve an as-applied Miller-type challenge below and, on the merits, Miller’s rationales (youth-specific characteristics and prospects for reform) do not plainly extend to adults with intellectual disability; no evolving consensus against life-without-parole for intellectually disabled adults shown	Forfeited for lack of preservation; alternatively, claim rejected on merits: Miller and Atkins do not automatically bar life-without-parole for intellectually disabled adults, and record does not show reduced culpability or strong prospect of rehabilitation sufficient to mandate relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing/expectation of privacy required to challenge a search)
Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.Crim.App.) (circumstances can extinguish expectation of privacy in cell phone)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (Failure to preserve evidentiary material requires showing of bad faith for due process violation)
Ex parte Brandley, 781 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Crim.App.) (suppression or ignoring exculpatory information may violate due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Materiality standard for undisclosed evidence: reasonable probability of different result)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (Mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; youth-focused reasoning)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Execution of intellectually disabled persons violates Eighth Amendment)