Cynthia Dominguez v. State
535 S.W.3d 125
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 26, 2012, appellant Cynthia Dominguez drove the wrong way, collided with and fatally injured Sgt. Michael Paauwe; her blood alcohol was high (.26 hospital, .34 DPS) and clonazepam was present.
- Dominguez was indicted for intoxication manslaughter with an affirmative deadly-weapon finding (motor vehicle).
- Pretrial: defense sought a psychiatric examination (claimed indigence/possible mental disorder); trial court denied appointment at county expense and treated the request as a defensive (mitigation) matter — defense never presented evidence suggesting incompetency.
- At trial Dominguez declined plea bargains, pleaded guilty in the jury’s presence, waived trial on guilt, and proceeded to a unitary punishment hearing; she testified to remorse and sought probation.
- Jury assessed punishment at 12 years’ imprisonment; Dominguez appealed arguing (1) plea involuntary/insufficient admonishments, (2) trial court failed to inquire/ evaluate/hold hearing on competency, and (3) the jury charge improperly referenced “good conduct time.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dominguez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness / knowing plea | Record lacks express inquiry that plea was because she was guilty; court didn’t admonish about waiving confrontation, trial, or privilege against self-incrimination | Record and counsel’s statements show Dominguez was informed, consulted counsel, declined plea offers, understood consequences, and knowingly waived rights | Affirmed — plea was knowing and voluntary under federal due process; trial substantially complied with art. 26.13 |
| Competency inquiries / evaluation / hearing | Trial court abused discretion by failing to (a) conduct informal inquiry, (b) order competency exam, (c) hold competency hearing after defense motion for psychiatric exam | No threshold suggestion of incompetency under art. 46B; motion sought a defensive mitigation exam, defense presented no affidavits, testimony, or facts showing inability to consult with counsel or understand proceedings | Affirmed — no suggestion of incompetency presented; court not required to conduct informal inquiry or order evaluation/hearing |
| Jury instruction on good-conduct time | Instruction misled jury because deadly-weapon finding made her ineligible for good conduct time; therefore jury may have been confused and increased sentence | Instruction tracks mandatory article 37.07 §4(a) language; it tells jury not to speculate on defendant-specific application and is legally accurate | Affirmed — inclusion of the statutory good-conduct/parole explanatory instruction was required and not misleading or unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary and with understanding of consequences)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent)
- Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for Boykin/plea validity and admonishments)
- Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (threshold ‘‘some evidence’’ standard for competency informal inquiry)
- Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (interpretation of article 46B competency procedures and informal inquiry)
- Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (statutory parole/good-conduct time instruction is legally accurate and does not violate due process)