Gonzalez, Enrique Jr.
PD-0036-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 21, 2015Background
- Appellant Enrique Gonzalez, Jr. was charged by indictment with two counts of Indecency with a Child (Tex. Pen. Code §21.11) in Duval County; the record also notes a prior 1996 conviction for Aggravated Sexual Assault with a five-year probation and an extended life-imprisonment sentence based on enhancements.
- Judgment on Gonzalez’s conviction was entered July 1, 2013; he timely filed a notice of appeal.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion on December 10, 2014 affirming the conviction.
- This Court denied Gonzalez’s Petition for Discretionary Review on April 1, 2015.
- Gonzalez then filed a Motion for Rehearing under Tex. R. App. P. 79.2(c) arguing errors in the appellate decision and trial-record handling of jury notes and admonishments, seeking rehearing and briefing on the merits.
- Appellant contends the denial of discretionary review allowed an opinion that failed to follow Texas caselaw regarding preservation and jury-note procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appellate court’s handling of trial admonishments preserving error correct? | Gonzalez | Gonzalez | Not stated |
| Did the court comply with Article 36.27 regarding a jury deadlock note disclosure? | Gonzalez | Gonzalez | Not stated |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (allows review of fundamental error without objection under Rule 103(d))
- Sharpe v. State, 648 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (standard for reviewing remarks affecting rights)
- Rabago v. State, 75 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. App. – San Antonio, 2002) (prescribes fundamental-error analysis without objection)
- Webb v. State, 409 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1972) (no perjury admonition required after oath is sworn)
- Williamson v. State, 771 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. App. – Dallas, 1989) (requirement to read jury instructions openly with record-keeping)
- Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preservation burden when record silent on objection)
- Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (no objection to probation terms waives complaints; due-process concerns)
- Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (preservation and record sufficiency standards)
- Crenshaw v. State, 424 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (contemporary appellate treatment of disclosures and preservation)