Garcia, Rodolfo Alvarado
WR-37,925-10
| Tex. App. | Feb 23, 2015Background
- Petitioner Rodolfo A. Garcia, an inmate, filed motions (June 2013; refiled/served Feb. 2015) asking the 83rd District Court / District Attorney to reopen punishment, alleging his plea-based sentence exceeded statutory authority.
- Garcia says he pleaded to felony charges and received two consecutive 40-year terms; he contends plea admonitions and sentencing procedures were unlawful because Article 26.14 of the Texas C.C.P. limits punishment in plea proceedings to an absolute fixed term or jury-assessed punishment.
- He alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to understand/admonish him about statutory limits on plea sentencing and for permitting an unlawful bench assessment of punishment.
- He alleges prosecutorial misconduct for likewise misunderstanding or misrepresenting the permissible punishment range and failing to move to reopen punishment under Art. 44.02(a)(6) when apprised of the illegality.
- Garcia argues the resulting sentence is void or illegal and seeks habeas relief (release for time served) and an order compelling the DA to reopen punishment; he asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to rule on his motion and threatens mandamus if the trial court does not act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea-based sentence exceeds statutory authority | The plea produced sentences (two 40-year terms consecutive) that violate Art. 26.14 CCP and the Texas Constitution because punishment in plea proceedings must be an absolute fixed term or jury-assessed | State contends sentencing following a plea was proper under local practice (not fully articulated in filings) | Motion seeking ruling is pending; petitioner cites precedent that trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on properly filed motions |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective at punishment stage | Counsel failed to know/admonish re: Art. 26.14 and Art. 5 §10, resulting in waiver of jury and unlawful longer sentence — prejudice shown by reasonable probability of different outcome | State likely would argue counsel’s performance was adequate or that any error was not prejudicial (not developed in filing) | Allegation is presented as ground for relief; no adjudication in these filings |
| Whether prosecutor engaged in misconduct by recommending/allowing illegal punishment | Prosecutor negligently or in bad faith misadvised court about punishment range and failed to seek reopening under Art. 44.02(a)(6) when aware of illegality | State’s response not in record; filing alleges bad faith and denial of due process | Allegation made; relief requested (reopening, habeas) — court action awaited |
| Whether the sentence is void and warrants habeas relief/release | The sentence is void/illegal and structural error; habeas relief and discharge for time served required | State would argue sentence is valid or not void; remedy may be reopening or appeal rather than immediate release (not argued here) | Garcia requests habeas and release; no ruling in provided record — petitioner relies on authorities stating void sentences are correctable at any time |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on properly filed motions)
- In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (ruling on a properly filed motion is a ministerial act; mandamus may issue)
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court may correct an illegal sentence at any time)
- Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Jackson, 212 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (addressing mandatory correction of void actions)
- Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (void punishment is a structural error reviewable anytime)
- Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (habeas may issue for persons in custody under an unauthorized punishment)
- Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (discussing relief for void sentences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial counsel must have a firm grasp of applicable law)
- Pielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (counsel responsible for knowing state law and procedures)