Deleon, Steven
PD-1318-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2015Background
- DeLeon was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment in Caldwell County, Texas.
- M.G. testified that DeLeon assaulted her multiple times in the summer of 2011, including touching her vagina and forcing her to touch his penis.
- A recording of a March 19, 2012 telephone conversation between M.G. and DeLeon was introduced after CPS involvement; D.A. reported abuse of her son, D.G., to authorities.
- DeLeon argued the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court improperly limited his defense and cross-examination, particularly regarding CPS involvement and D.A.’s motives.
- The defense sought to introduce evidence about D.A.’s disciplinary history and bias, which the court largely prohibited under trial rules.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient and the trial court did not err, and that the sentence was constitutional; DeLeon’s appeal was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal adequacy of confrontational evidence limits | DeLeon argues CPS-related motive evidence was improperly excluded | DeLeon contends exclusion prevented a full defense | Exclusion not reversible; evidence not essential to defense; sufficiency upheld. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | MG’s testimony establishes two or more acts over 30 days | Credibility issues undermine conviction | Sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
| Mistrial for prosecutorial comment on silence | Prosecutor commented on DeLeon’s silence during punishment stage | Comment violated Fifth Amendment rights | Court's curative instruction cured error; no mistrial necessary. |
| Parole denial and cruel/unusual punishment | Sentence without parole is disproportionate to crime | Statutory scheme constitutional given offense nature | Sentence constitutional; no parole does not violate Eighth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits on presenting relevant evidence; due process considerations)
- Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (limits on cross-examination for bias; marginal relevance rules)
- Koelzler v. State, 679 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (preserving bias cross-examination; discretionary limits upheld)
- Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (proper cure of comment on defendant’s failure to testify; mistrial generally uncommon)
- Randolph v. State, 353 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishes testifying vs. remorse; improper to comment on failure to testify at punishment)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (factors for determining cure of improper prosecutorial comment; mistrial not automatic)