David Anthony Aguilar, Jr. v. the State of Texas
04-20-00056-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- David Aguilar was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 based on testimony from his stepdaughter ("Amy") and her cousin ("Karen"); both victims were under 14 during the alleged conduct.
- He was acquitted on two indecency-with-a-child counts, sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, and is ineligible for parole under Texas law.
- Aguilar raised eight appellate issues: prosecutorial misconduct / argumentative questioning; Eighth Amendment and Texas cruel-and-unusual-punishment challenge to the sentencing scheme; denial of an oral continuance; exclusion (via motion in limine) of evidence about the biological father’s sex‑offender status as an alternative perpetrator; and cumulative error.
- The trial court overruled one argumentative objection at trial; most complaints (questioning, sidebar comment, closing argument) were not objected to or pursued at trial.
- The appellate court concluded most complaints were forfeited for failure to preserve; where addressed on the merits, the court rejected Aguilar’s claims and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aguilar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct; argumentative questioning and improper cross/exam/closing | Trial court abused discretion by overruling an argumentative objection; prosecutor’s questions and closing remarks denied a fair trial (fundamental error) | Many complaints were not timely/specificly objected to or pursued; preserved objection was not improper; no fundamental error | Majority of complaints forfeited for lack of objection; the preserved argumentative objection was not an abuse of discretion; no fundamental error found |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (statutory 25–99 years and no-parole for §21.02) | The statutory scheme is categorically disproportionate: denies parole to an entire class and can be harsher than some murder sentences | The scheme serves penological goals (incapacitation/deterrence), is within statutory ranges, and Meadoux factors support constitutionality | Court applied Meadoux factors (national consensus, culpability, severity, penological goals) and held the scheme constitutional under U.S. and Texas constitutions |
| Motion for continuance (oral, first day) | Denial of requested continuance deprived Aguilar of opportunity to investigate and present a complete defense | Motion was oral and unsworn; Texas law requires written, sworn motion to preserve complaint | Aguilar forfeited appellate review because his continuance motion was neither written nor sworn; no due-process exception applied |
| Exclusion of evidence re: alternative perpetrator (biological father’s sex‑offender status) | Trial court’s motion in limine and ruling prevented defense from presenting alternative-perpetrator evidence | Motion in limine ruling was preliminary; defense failed to offer the evidence at trial or obtain an adverse ruling | Error not preserved: Aguilar did not offer evidence or obtain an adverse ruling after the in limine order, so appellate review is forfeited |
| Cumulative error | Multiple errors together denied a fair trial | No preserved errors of consequence to accumulate | No cumulative harm: because individual claims failed or were forfeited, cumulative‑error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (multifarious‑issue doctrine)
- Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Meadoux four‑factor test for categorical Eighth Amendment challenges)
- McCain v. State, 582 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) (applying Meadoux to §21.02 sentencing scheme)
- Glover v. State, 406 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) (upholding §21.02 sentencing scheme)
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) (scope of Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis)
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (written, sworn motion requirement to preserve continuance error)
- Warner v. State, 969 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (motion in limine rulings do not by themselves preserve error)