Eduardo Cruz Ramirez v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9191
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Eduardo Cruz Ramirez was charged with violating a June 2011 protective order that prohibited threatening or harassing communications with his ex-wife, Miriam Liquez.
- In November 2011 Liquez discovered threatening voicemail messages on her phone; a CD of five recordings (four from Ramirez) was admitted at trial.
- Phone records and a carrier legend showing call codes were admitted; records showed at least one call from Ramirez to Liquez around 1:20 a.m. on November 6, 2011, but did not unambiguously identify voicemail activity.
- Liquez testified that at least two of the messages were left after the protective order took effect and that she did not begin dating her boyfriend until August/September 2011; three messages referenced the boyfriend and included death threats.
- A jury found Ramirez guilty; the trial court sentenced him to 300 days in jail and assessed $402 in court costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that messages were sent after the protective order | Voice recordings and Liquez’s testimony support that at least two messages were post-order | Phone records and carrier codes show no voicemail entries on Nov 6, so messages could have been pre-order | Evidence (recordings, testimony, and ambiguous phone codes) was sufficient for a rational jury to find messages sent after the order; issue overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for assessed court costs | Bill of costs and sheriff’s returns show summonses and support fees (including $5 per summons) | Bill of costs defective, not presented to court, no notice, and summons counts ambiguous | Bill of costs supplemented and satisfied statutory form; presentment not required in direct criminal appeal; sheriff’s returns support summons counts; statute construed to allow $5 per summons each time served; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applies Jackson standard to Texas sufficiency review and illustrates when conflicting evidence cannot support a rational verdict)
- Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (discusses application of Jackson standard in this court)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (requires sufficient record evidence to support assessment of court costs)
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (procedural due-process discussion regarding inmate challenges to cost withdrawals)