Cueva, Charles Anthony Ii
354 S.W.3d 820
Tex. Crim. App.2011Background
- Cueva II was convicted in Texas court on two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of indecency with a child.
- Appellant timely filed a written motion for new trial within 30 days after sentencing, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at guilt and punishment stages.
- At a hearing more than 30 days after sentencing, Cueva presented new, different ineffective-assistance grounds not contained in the written motion; the State objected.
- The trial court admitted evidence on the new grounds and denied the motion for new trial; the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider untimely, new grounds.
- Cueva petitioned for discretionary review and sought rehearing arguing Pena v. State requires rehearing; the State argued Pena is not controlling here.
- The concurring judge concludes Pena is procedurally distinguishable and upholds the denial of rehearing; cites Clark and Drew for relevant timeliness principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Pena a substantial intervening circumstance requiring rehearing? | Cueva argues Pena requires rehearing. | State argues Pena is not controlling here. | Pena is not a substantial intervening circumstance; rehearing denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State, 270 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (untimely amendments may be permitted if no objection)
- Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (trial court has no jurisdiction to consider motions for new trial filed after 30-day deadline)