Frangias v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 434
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary.
- Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to secure Sotomayor’s testimony, to depose him, or to seek a continuance.
- Sotomayor, a hotel employee, could have corroborated appellant’s defense that the drunken woman seen in the lobby was not KH and that appellant did not enter KH’s room.
- Defense sought to present testimony telephonically or by video; the trial court refused; deposition and continuance options were discussed but not pursued.
- The motion for new trial was denied by operation of law after the trial court proceeded on affidavits; the court of appeals affirmed the denial.
- The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to assess whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient and remanded for prejudice analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s handling of Sotomayor violated Strickland. | Appellant | Sotomayor testimony not reasonably feasible | Counsel deficient; remand for prejudice analysis |
| Whether deposition or continuance were feasible, and if not pursued, was it reasonable. | Appellant | Court could deny deposition/continuance; no necessity | Not reasonable to abandon alternatives; eligible for review on remand |
| Whether the deposition status and affidavits were properly admissible and considered. | Appellant | Affidavits admissible evidence; trial court’s discretion | Issues to be resolved on remand; evidentiary status must be clarified |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Frangias v. State, 367 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2012) (deposition and continuance standards; evidentiary issues on appeal)
- Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (timeliness of deposition ruling before trial)
- Jasso v. State, 699 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985) (deposition timing and discretion considerations)
- Freeman v. State, 115 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (bodily infirmity and deposition admissibility basics)
- Frangias v. State, 367 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2012) (reiterates deposition/continuance under Art. 39.12)
- Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appellate review of motion for new trial under abuse of discretion)