Jose Saldana, Jr. v. State
05-15-00059-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 30, 2015Background
- On July 19, 2013, a confrontation between rival car clubs (D‑Town Allstars and Boss Hoggin) at Hamm’s Tire Shop culminated in a shooting that wounded Carlos Delapena.
- Witnesses Rodrigues and Delapena identified Jose Saldana, Jr. as the shooter; evidence showed gunfire from both ends of the lot.
- Police investigated, reviewed Saldana’s text messages, and arrested and indicted him for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- At trial the State introduced two surveillance videotapes downloaded from nearby businesses; an FBI computer forensic examiner (Chipper Beegle) authenticated copies. Defense argued Beegle lacked the proper predicate.
- The jury convicted Saldana; the trial court sentenced him to 25 years. The written judgment stated Saldana pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph, but the record shows he pleaded not true.
- On appeal Saldana challenged (1) admission/authentication of the surveillance videos, (2) legality of the 25‑year sentence as outside the punishment range, and (3) asked that the judgment be modified to reflect his plea of not true to the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Saldana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of surveillance videos | Beegle’s testimony sufficed to authenticate the downloaded copies; jurors could evaluate weight | Beegle lacked personal knowledge of the recording systems, operation on the night, and was not present at the offense | Admission was within trial court’s discretion; authentication satisfied Rule 901; any error would be harmless |
| Harm from videotape admission | Even if error, other evidence (IDs, texts) made admission harmless | Admission without proper predicate prejudiced his defense | Error, if any, did not affect substantial rights; issue overruled |
| Legality of 25‑year sentence (enhancement) | State proved final prior felony during punishment; written judgment reflects finding of true so sentence falls within enhanced range | Judgment incorrectly states plea of true; record shows plea of not true so enhancement not supported and sentence is illegal | Trial court did not err in sentencing within enhanced range because record supported the written finding; issue overruled |
| Modification of judgment to reflect plea | Agreed modification is appropriate to match record | Requested correction to show plea of not true | Court sustains and modifies judgment to reflect plea of not true; as modified, judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standards for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable juror standard for authentication)
- Garner v. State, 939 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997) (authentication under Rule 901 does not require proof of everything)
- Reavis v. State, 84 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (witness need not have observed events to authenticate a videotape)
- Page v. State, 125 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (videotape authenticated despite witness not present at crime)
- Turk v. State, 867 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (judgment cannot be upheld when enhancements lacked factfinder finding)
- Almand v. State, 536 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (appellate court may reform judgment when record shows prior conviction)
- Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State’s burden to prove prior conviction is final and identity of defendant)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors in harm analysis for non‑constitutional error)