Irma Munguia v. State
11-16-00009-CR
Tex. App.Dec 29, 2017Background
- Irma Munguia was convicted by a jury of two misdemeanors arising from a June 10, 2013 parking-lot incident: resisting arrest, search, or transportation (Class A) and interference with public duties (Class B). Sentences of 30 days’ confinement (concurrent) were suspended and nine months’ community supervision imposed.
- Officer James Cummings, a Texas Parks and Wildlife game warden in uniform and patrol vehicle, observed a physical altercation, identified himself, and detained Munguia’s adult son in handcuffs.
- Cummings testified Munguia struck him with a cane, shouldered him, lunged, grabbed his weapon, and resisted while he attempted to place her in handcuffs. Munguia denied knowing he was a police officer or that she was under arrest.
- The State introduced a recording of a 9-1-1 call from a witness who did not testify at trial; Munguia did not object on Confrontation Clause grounds at trial.
- Munguia raised four appellate issues: (1) admission of the 9-1-1 recording violated the Confrontation Clause, (2) insufficient evidence for resisting arrest, (3) convictions constitute double jeopardy, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object, call the 9-1-1 caller, and raise double jeopardy.
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting each issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Munguia) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admission of 9‑1‑1 recording | Admission violated right to confront because caller did not testify | No timely Confrontation objection at trial; trial court had no chance to rule | Waived on appeal for lack of timely trial objection; issue overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (Penal §38.03) | No evidence she knew she was under arrest; her use of force occurred before an arrest was attempted | Officer in uniform identified himself; jury could infer arrest was being effected when officer placed her on ground and that she used force thereafter | Evidence sufficient under Jackson; issue overruled |
| Double jeopardy (two convictions) | Convictions punish same conduct twice | Offenses have different elements, punishment ranges, and gravamens; legislature did not indicate they are the same | Not the same offense; no double jeopardy violation; issue overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel erred by not objecting to 9‑1‑1 recording, not calling the caller, and not raising double jeopardy | 9‑1‑1 call likely nontestimonial; availability/benefit of caller unknown; strategic decisions presumed reasonable; double jeopardy claim lacks merit | Record does not show deficient performance or prejudice; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (examines sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (ineffective-assistance and prejudice analysis)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements; 9‑1‑1 calls often nontestimonial)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same‑offense test for multiple-punishments analysis)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Texas guidance on same‑offense/multiple‑punishment inquiry)
- Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (factors for multiple‑punishment/double jeopardy analysis)
- Ex parte Milner, 394 S.W.3d 502 (double jeopardy protections described)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (discusses Jackson standard in Texas appellate review)