Guadalupe Martinez III v. State, 05-14-01460-CR

Background

On July 20, 2006, Guadalupe Martinez III approached Amanda Edmiston and Alyssa Acosta at a Wendy’s, displayed a gun, forced Amanda to drive while Martinez rode in the back, and then took Amanda’s car; he took both women’s cell phones but later returned Alyssa’s.
The women reported the car’s license plate; Martinez was arrested later that day in Oklahoma driving Amanda’s blue Pontiac Bonneville; police recovered a black .380 semiautomatic on the driver’s-side floor.
Martinez was indicted in September 2006 for two counts of aggravated robbery (use of a deadly weapon).
In April 2013 Martinez mailed a general motion for speedy trial/dismissal to the Dallas court clerk; it did not reference the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IADA) or contain the Article III information required for a proper IADA request.
The State requested temporary custody in December 2013; Martinez was transferred to Dallas custody March 7, 2014; he was tried, convicted by a jury of both aggravated robberies (and deadly-weapon findings), and sentenced to two consecutive 15-year terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictments should be dismissed under IADA Article III for failure to try within 180 days after Martinez’s written request for final disposition	Martinez: He “caused to be delivered” a written request on April 24, 2013, so the 180-day clock started and expired before trial	State: The April 2013 mailing did not comply with Article III (not sent to prosecuting officer, lacked required certificate/info), so the 180-day period never triggered	Denied. Court held Martinez’s mailing did not meet Article III requirements; IADA 180-day deadline never began to run.
Whether indictments should be dismissed under IADA Article IV for failure to try within 120 days of arrival in Texas	Martinez: Not tried within 120 days after transfer to Dallas custody (arrival)	State: Continuances requested/reset by defense counsel tolled the 120-day period; trial occurred within tolled period	Denied. Court found continuances (with defendant present/represented) tolled the 120-day deadline; trial timely.
Legal sufficiency of evidence identifying Martinez and proving theft/attempted theft of Alyssa’s phone	Martinez: Identification eight years after event is unreliable; insufficient proof he obtained/maintained control of Alyssa’s phone	State: Victims identified Martinez in court and from photo lineup; deputy identified him; he was arrested driving the stolen car; testimony that he took both phones supports theft element	Overruled. Court held evidence was legally sufficient for identity and theft.
Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction because no transfer order appears between grand-jury’s impaneling court and the trial court	Martinez: No record of a transfer order from the 204th to the 283rd Judicial District Court, so trial court lacked jurisdiction	State: Assignment of cases returned by a grand jury is not necessarily limited to the impaneling court; defendant did not file a timely plea to preserve complaint	Denied. Court treated lack of transfer as procedural (not jurisdictional) and waived by failure to plea; issue without merit.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (describes IADA procedures)
Powell v. State, 971 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (defendant must comply with Article III requirements when sending request himself)
Burton v. State, 805 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (notice defects can prevent triggering IADA 180-day period)
Kirvin v. State, 394 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (reasonable or necessary continuances toll IADA limits)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard under due process)
Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (jury’s role in assessing witness credibility)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jury may draw reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts)
Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (grand jury impaneling does not fix assignment of returned cases to that court)
Lemasurier v. State, 91 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (failure to file a plea waives complaint about lack of transfer order)