LaToya Amador v. the State of Texas
13-19-00562-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2021Background
- Appellant Latoya Amador was convicted by a jury of delivery of methamphetamine (4–200 g) and sentenced to 25 years.
- The prosecution used a confidential informant, Hilliary McCallister, who recorded a transaction inside a shed; he testified Amador sold him a half ounce after she "reup"ped.
- Video from the shed showing Amador removing, weighing, and handing a substance (later lab-confirmed as methamphetamine, 10.47 g) was admitted and played for the jury.
- During the punishment phase Amador resisted transport to court; body-cam video of her disruptive/threatening conduct at the jail/courthouse was admitted over objection; Amador missed the punishment hearing and the jury assessed 25 years.
- Amador raised eight appellate issues (reordered): legal sufficiency (delivery, corroboration, venue), several evidentiary objections, reference to another pending charge, denial of mistrial, disproportionality of punishment, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Amador) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence (delivery, corroboration, venue) | Video + informant testimony and lab results show an actual transfer in Bee County; video corroborates informant | Insufficient proof of delivery (joint purchase theory), lack of corroboration for informant, venue wrong county | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for delivery; video corroborated informant; venue proven in Bee County by preponderance |
| Admission of informant's definition of "reup" | Testimony helps explain transaction context | Testimony was improper extraneous-offense / prejudicial | Error not preserved (trial objection did not match appellate theory); issue overruled |
| Lay witness (DA investigator) testifying he observed a transfer on video | Testimony was lay opinion rationally based on perception and helpful | Needed expert qualifications to describe a narcotics delivery | Appellant failed to preserve specific expert-objection; alternatively testimony admissible under Rule 701; issue overruled |
| Admission of body-cam video and trial court mentioning another pending charge | Video relevant to punishment; brief mention of another cause number was harmless | Video prejudicial under Rule 403; mention of another charge improper | Objections not properly preserved (no timely/specific trial objection or request for curative relief); admission upheld |
| Motion for mistrial (competency, juror exposure, absence) | Court acted within discretion; defendant’s conduct voluntary and disruptive, not proof of incompetence | Defendant was potentially incompetent, juror saw conduct, and absence required mistrial | Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; conduct not probative of incompetence; absence found voluntary |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (25-year sentence) | Sentence within statutory range for first-degree felony | Sentence grossly disproportionate | Not preserved by timely objection; sentence within statutory limits; issue overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (State responds that record does not show deficient performance) | Trial counsel failed to move for mistrial/strike/other objections and failed to preserve issues | Record insufficient to show deficiency; strategic reasons plausible; Strickland standard not met; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (credibility/resolution of conflicts by factfinder)
- Thomas v. State, 832 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of actual transfer for delivery)
- Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App.) (accomplice/informant corroboration standard)
- Ambrose v. State, 487 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App.) (corroboration need not cover each element)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App.) (lay opinion admissibility under Rule 701)
- Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App.) (venue burden of proof standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)