425 S.W.3d 655
Tex. App.2014Background
- On May 28–29, 2011, officers investigated a vehicle collision on the Houston 610 Loop and created a barricade across four lanes.
- Rodriguez allegedly approached the barricade at high speed, veered past it, and struck Officer Will, who died.
- Officers observed obvious intoxication signs; Cocaine was found; blood analysis indicated BAC likely in .20–.24 range at the time of collision.
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty after the motion to suppress blood test results was denied; jury set punishment at 55 years with a deadly weapon enhancement.
- Appellant later challenged the conviction on procedural, immigration-admonition, and ineffective-assistance grounds on appeal.
- The court affirmed, addressing issues regarding new-trial procedures, deportation admonitions, and trial counsel effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a new-trial hearing | Rodriguez contends a hearing was required. | State argues no hearing was required absent a timely, proper request. | No abuse; denial upheld; proper presentment not shown. |
| Whether the lack of deportation admonitions affected the plea | Rodriguez claims Article 26.13 admonitions were required and omitted. | State argues error is non-constitutional and harmless under fair-assurance standard. | Harmless error; guilty plea would not have differed with admonition. |
| Whether Rodriguez received ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to consult experts and inadequately advised on plea strategy. | Record shows counsel acted competently; no deficient performance proven. | No ineffective assistance; record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (presentment and hearing requirements for new-trial motions)
- Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (presentment and ten-day requirement for new-trial matters)
- Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (presentment evidence requirements for new-trial motions)
- Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harm analysis for immigration-consequences admonitions)
- Gutierrez-Gomez v. State, 321 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2010) (non-constitutional nature of Article 26.13 admonitions and harm analysis)
- VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (fair-assurance harm analysis for immigration consequences)