Julio Garcia Jimenez v. State
446 S.W.3d 544
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Jimenez pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child in 2010 and was placed on ten years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- Jimenez was deported to Mexico shortly after the order and later illegally re-entered the United States in January 2011.
- In September 2011 a federal court convicted Jimenez of illegal re-entry and sentenced him to 33 months’ imprisonment.
- In June 2011 the State sought to adjudicate guilt and revoke supervision based on the illegal re-entry; Jimenez was later moved to a Texas state prison.
- June 2013 the CSO interviewed Jimenez without Article 38.22 warnings; statements were later admitted at the revocation hearing.
- At punishment, the trial court imposed eight years’ imprisonment and awarded $643.50 in attorney’s fees, which the State agrees should be deleted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statement under 38.22 and Miranda | Jimenez argues the statement was improperly admitted. | State contends either admissible or harmless error. | Harmless error; admission did not contribute to guilt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for illegal re-entry | Jimenez contends evidence is legally insufficient. | State asserts legally sufficient evidence of re-entry. | Legally sufficient evidence supports finding of violation. |
| Presentence investigation requirement under Article 42.12 | Jimenez sought a presentence investigation; error for failure to order. | Judge was not required to order PSI due to §9(g)(3) exception. | No error; 9(g)(3) exception applies; PSI not required. |
| Section 9A presentence investigation for sex offenders | Request for 9A presentence investigation was ignored. | No explicit preservation of 9A issue; not preserved. | Issue not preserved; not reviewed on appeal. |
| Attorney’s fees assessment | Fees deleted; modified judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (harmless-error review for improperly admitted evidence)
- McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (guidance on harmlessness in evidence errors)
- Akins v. State, 202 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (overwhelming evidence can render Miranda error harmless)
- Jordy v. State, 969 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (Miranda error harmless when evidence supports same element)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. 2006) (preponderance standard for violating supervision conditions)