Juan Vela v. State
13-14-00249-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Juan Vela was indicted on three counts of aggravated robbery occurring Oct. 5, 2013 (two at a Dollar General, one at a Wal-Mart); jury convicted on all counts and assessed 45-year sentences under habitual-offender enhancement.
- Counts 1 and 2 involved two Dollar General employees (Luna and Leija); Count 3 involved a Wal‑Mart employee (Torres). Each incident involved a kitchen knife, threats about a gun, money taken from tills/boxes, and similar clothing/behavior; incidents occurred within about an hour in Corpus Christi.
- Appellant moved at docket call to sever Count 3 (Wal‑Mart) from Counts 1 and 2 (Dollar General); the trial court denied the motion. Appellant also announced not ready on Count 3 to preserve appellate issues; court proceeded with a joint trial.
- The State argued the offenses arose from the same criminal episode or shared a common scheme/signature (detergent/lighter/fire, clothing, method), making evidence from each admissible as same‑transaction/contextual or identity evidence.
- Appellant argued the joint trial prejudiced him and that he was entitled to severance (or new separate trials) because the crimes were separate robberies at different locations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to sever Count 3 from Counts 1–2 | State: joinder/consolidation proper because offenses arose from same episode/common scheme; evidence from each would be admissible in separate trials | Vela: requested severance of Count 3; argued joint trial of separate robberies prejudiced him and affected strategy/identification defense | Denial not reversible: defendant not entitled to sever one count from others; offenses sufficiently connected (time, place, modus operandi, "signature" detergent/fire) and any error did not affect substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. State, 412 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explains same‑transaction/common‑scheme joinder and same‑transaction contextual evidence; assesses severance harm under entire record)
- Llamas v. State, 12 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harm analysis for severance errors; defendant’s right to sever when offenses consolidated)
- Nelson v. State, 864 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State controls consolidation/joinder; defendant has no right to compel consolidation)
- Ransom v. State, 503 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (extraneous offenses admissible to prove identity when similar in mode and close in time/place)
- Thornton v. State, 986 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (primary rationale for severance is to prevent jury conviction based on other misdeeds; severance limits presentation of multiple offenses)