Esther Garcia Ortega v. State, 472 S.W.3d 779

Ortega worked as a floor attendant at Treasure Island Arcade; undercover deputy won payouts from “eight‑liners” and was paid by Ortega. A search warrant executed Nov. 9, 2010 seized ~70 gaming devices and cash. Ortega was interviewed post‑raid without Miranda warnings; recording admitted at trial.
Ortega was charged (refiled) July 15, 2011; initial complaint had been dismissed earlier. The State did not execute the arrest warrant or notify Ortega for ~2 years; she surrendered in July 2013.
Ortega was tried, convicted of possession of a gambling device, sentenced to two days’ jail and a $700 fine, and appealed.
On appeal Ortega raised four issues: (1) undated jurat in complaint deprived court of jurisdiction; (2) trial court abused discretion by not enforcing subpoena for seized motherboards and by limiting questioning of a bank teller (compulsory process); (3) speedy‑trial violation from ~27‑month delay; (4) testimonial immunity under Tex. Penal Code §47.08 because she was compelled to give self‑incriminating statements to a sergeant.
Trial court denied Ortega’s motions; the appellate court affirmed, finding waiver on the jurat issue, insufficient prejudice for speedy‑trial relief, no entitlement to §47.08 immunity (interview found non‑custodial), and no abuse of discretion or preserved compulsory‑process error regarding physical evidence and bank teller testimony.

Issue	Ortega's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Jurat undated — jurisdiction of charging instrument	Complaint lacked a date in the jurat; therefore information is invalid and court lacked jurisdiction	Ortega did not timely object in trial court; defect waived	Waived for appellate review; issue overruled
Speedy trial — 27‑month delay	Delay between filing and prosecution violated Sixth/Art. I §10 rights; dismissal required	Delay not explained but Ortega failed to show prejudice or diligent assertion of right	Triggered analysis but Ortega failed to make a prima facie showing of prejudice; denial of dismissal affirmed
Immunity under Tex. Penal Code §47.08 / involuntary testimony	Sgt. Kributr’s unwarned interview compelled Ortega to furnish incriminating testimony, triggering statutory immunity	Interview was voluntary/noncustodial; §47.08 immunity not available based on these facts	Trial court could reasonably find interview noncustodial; immunity not available; issue overruled
Subpoena for motherboards & bank teller questioning (compulsory process)	Court abused discretion by refusing subpoena for motherboards and barred teller questioning about seized funds	Motherboards were auctioned/destroyed (not in State’s possession); Ortega failed to preserve bank‑teller/compulsory‑process complaint	No abuse regarding motherboards because State lacked possession; bank‑teller/compulsory‑process claim not preserved for appeal; issues overruled

Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (a complaint without a proper jurat will not support an information)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (threshold for presumptively prejudicial delay)
Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (application of Barker factors in Texas)
Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (speedy‑trial standards under state and federal constitutions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)