Frangias v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1890
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Frangias was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to eight years in prison in Texas.
- Frangias alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to secure a key witness, Sotomayor, by deposition or continuance, or permit witness testimony by telephone.
- Sotomayor, a Rainbow Inn Suites employee, purportedly could corroborate Frangias’s defense that the complainant was intoxicated and that Frangias did not enter her room.
- Defense sought telephonic/testimony or deposition; the trial court refused; the defense later offered affidavits about Sotomayor and other witnesses at a motion for new trial.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial by operation of law; the court of appeals affirmed the denial without addressing all evidentiary issues.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding trial counsel’s performance was deficient and remanding to consider prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel’s handling of Sotomayor deficient | Frangias contends counsel failed to pursue available avenues to obtain Sotomayor’s testimony. | Jones and Valdez maintained they acted reasonably given the circumstances and court rulings against deposition or continuance. | Yes; court found deficient performance under Strickland. |
| Did failure to depose or seek continuance prejudice the defense | Defective strategy deprived jury of critical corroboration. | Any deposition or continuance would have been impractical or denied, so no prejudice shown. | Remanded to evaluate prejudice on remand; held that performance was deficient, requiring prejudice analysis. |
| Whether deposition/testimony by telephone/video was permissible under Article 39.12 | Deposition/read testimony should have been allowed to preserve critical testimony. | Jury should see the witness; deposition was improper without proper statutory compliance. | Court rejected the defense’s narrow view; deposition read at trial permissible if statutory criteria met; rejection contributed to error. |
| Was there reasonable diligence to pursue a second continuance | Counsel should have pursued a second continuance to secure Sotomayor’s presence. | Continance would have been impractical and unlikely to be granted. | Court held counsel failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence; not reasonably investigating availability. |
| Should the court of appeals resolve evidentiary status of affidavits on remand | Affidavits from Jones and Valdez should count as evidence of deficient performance. | Affidavits’ evidentiary status in the trial record was contested and not decided on original appeal. | Remand to address evidentiary issues and prejudice consistent with Strickland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court (1984)) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court (2003)) (emphasizes adequacy of investigation in mitigation/defense strategy)
- Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (investigation and strategic considerations in defense)
- Freeman v. State, 30 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (earlyガ deposition considerations and travel-infirmity framework)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requirements for evaluating counsel performance under Strickland)