Daniel Manuel Castorena A/K/A Daniel Castorena v. State, 02-15-00200-CR

Appellant Daniel Castorena was indicted for organized criminal activity by committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (first-degree felony).
He entered a plea-bargained guilty plea to the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (second-degree felony) without a state recommendation; the court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
The PSI contained appellant’s statements (written and interview) that, read on their face, could suggest a self‑defense theory inconsistent with the earlier plea.
At sentencing the judge, after reviewing the PSI, discussed on the record his view that appellant’s PSI statements might not meet the legal limits of self‑defense (provoking the difficulty, time/distance issues) and questioned counsel and appellant to confirm he still wished to proceed with the plea and sentencing.
Appellant later appealed, arguing the judge abandoned neutrality, advised him on the merits of his defense, usurped counsel’s role, and thereby violated due process.
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding (1) some complaints were not preserved for appeal and (2) the record did not show the judge was biased or that a structural due‑process violation occurred.

Issue	Castorena's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the judge abandoned neutrality and advised appellant on the merits of his defense, depriving him of due process	Judge’s on‑the‑record comments about the plea negotiations, PSI statements, and the strength of a self‑defense theory amounted to impermissible judicial advocacy that influenced the plea	The complaint was not preserved for appeal (not raised below); and even on the merits the record shows no judicial bias or predetermined sentence — questioning was to clarify voluntariness and the record	Overruled. Preservation fails for interference‑with‑plea claim; on the merits record does not show lack of neutrality or structural error; judgment affirmed
Whether the judge usurped counsel’s role by creating record and evaluating defenses	Judge’s lengthy on‑record narrative and legal observations improperly performed counsel’s function and shaped the record	Trial judge acted to ensure plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered after PSI raised issues; clarifying questions and comments are permissible and do not show partiality	Overruled. Court found judge sought to ensure voluntariness and clarify the PSI; subsequent proceedings showed impartiality

Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing when judge conduct shows partiality or predetermined sentence)
Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial judge’s duty to ensure guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
Moore v. State, 295 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (claims of judicial interference with plea bargaining are not systemic and must be preserved)
Brewer v. State, 572 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (court may ask clarifying questions and still remain impartial)
Hailey v. State, 413 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (preservation and review principles for plea‑related judicial conduct)