John Frangias v. State
367 S.W.3d 806
Tex. App.2012Background
- Frangias was convicted of sexually assaulting K.H. in July 2008 at his family’s hotel in Houston; trial occurred in Harris County, Texas.
- Defense argued Frangias was physically unable to commit forcible rape, K.H. was intoxicated, and he helped her upstairs without entering her room.
- Defense sought to introduce Sotomayor’s testimony regarding events; defense alleged ineffective assistance for failing to procure this witness or a continuance.
- Hansard testified about Frangias’s health; the trial court excluded portions as hearsay or irrelevant, but other witnesses and records described health issues.
- Frangias moved for a new trial; the trial court denied, and the court of appeals ultimately affirmed the conviction, upholding the denial and the evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to secure Sotomayor’s testimony | Frangias | State | Denied; court found trial counsel’s conduct within professional norms |
| Failure to move for continuance to secure Sotomayor’s attendance | Frangias | State | Denied; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of Hansard’s health testimony | Frangias | State | Denied; exclusion not reversible; testimony cumulative |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Texas constitutional standard alongside Strickland)
- Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (deference to counsel’s trial strategy; totality of representation)
- Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to trial court findings; not every error merits reversal)
- Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (deposition rules under Article 39.02; limited guidance)
- Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (timeliness and diligence in motions for deposition/continuance)
- Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (ineffective assistance where caselaw not definitive)