Glenn, Dustin Wayne
PD-0350-15
| Tex. App. | May 1, 2015Background
- Dustin Glenn originally received deferred adjudication on two aggravated-assault causes and was placed on community supervision.
- The State moved to adjudicate after alleged probation violations; Glenn pleaded not true at the adjudication hearing.
- The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Glenn to 12 years confinement on each cause without a separate punishment hearing following adjudication.
- Glenn filed motions for new trial, offered extensive mental-health records and testimony (including his own and his mother’s), and claimed he was denied the chance to present mitigation and received ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate/present mental-health mitigation.
- The trial court denied the motions for new trial; the First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) that Glenn failed to preserve the separate-punishment-hearing complaint and that prejudice could not be shown where the same judge presided over sentencing and the motion-for-new-trial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glenn) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether error was preserved for lack of a separate punishment hearing after adjudication when mitigation evidence was presented at the motion-for-new-trial hearing | Glenn: He preserved error because he identified and attempted to present specific mental-health mitigation (medical records, mother's testimony) at the new-trial hearing and in filings | State/Trial Court: Preservation requires timely objection or specific identification in the motion for new trial; Glenn did not specify additional evidence in his written motion | Court of Appeals: Not preserved — Glenn’s written motions did not apprise the trial court of the specific additional evidence he would have offered at a separate punishment hearing; issue overruled |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding portions of punishment evidence (mother’s detailed testimony) | Glenn: Exclusion denied due process to present relevant childhood/mental-health mitigation | State/Trial Court: The trial court exercised discretion under relevance/Rule 403; similar evidence was already admitted (Glenn’s own testimony, some mother testimony) | Court of Appeals: No abuse — admitted evidence was substantially similar and exclusion caused no reversible harm; issue overruled |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present medical records and other mitigation before adjudication | Glenn: Counsel failed to discover/present extensive medical records and background, creating reasonable probability of a lesser sentence | State/Trial Court: Even assuming records had been presented, the trial judge (who denied relief at the new-trial hearing) implicitly found those records would not have changed punishment; no prejudice shown | Court of Appeals: No ineffective-assistance reversal — trial court denied new trial, and appellate review defers to judge’s implicit finding that additional records would not have affected punishment; issue overruled |
| Whether appellate review is foreclosed/impaired because the same judge presided over sentencing and the motion-for-new-trial hearing (presumption against prejudice) | Glenn: That presumption denies meaningful appellate review and allows judges to insulate sentencing decisions from review | State/Trial Court: When the same judge hears the new-trial testimony, courts presume the judge knew the effect of that evidence and can determine prejudice; this presumption is appropriate | Court of Appeals: Applied presumption that the sentencing judge, having heard the new-trial evidence, implicitly found it would not have changed punishment; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant entitled to punishment hearing after adjudication of deferred adjudication)
- Goody v. State, 433 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (trial judge’s denial of new-trial relief implies additional testimony would not have influenced punishment)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption that judge knew what new-trial evidence would have shown when same judge presided)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S.) (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital context; guidance on investigation/mitigation analysis)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S.) (mitigation importance for mentally deficient defendants)
- Arriaga v. State, 335 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (same-judge presumption applied; no prejudice shown)
- Shanklin v. State, 190 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (failure to investigate can support ineffective-assistance claim where investigation was inadequate)