Leza v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1372
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Armando Leza was convicted of intentional murder during a robbery, a capital offense, and the jury found death-penalty eligibility after answering the special issues under Article 37.071.
- Leza and his girlfriend Dolores Trevino attacked Caryl Allen in Allen’s apartment, tying her up, cutting her throat, and stabbing her; they then stole items, used Allen’s car, pawned goods, and set Allen’s car on fire.
- Leza was arrested within 48 hours and admitted during interrogation that he personally cut Allen’s throat; the trial court entered a general verdict of guilt and the punishment phase included evidence of prior criminal history.
- Leza raised fourteen points of error on appeal challenging various trial court rulings and evidentiary rulings, which the Court addresses in detail.
- The Court holds that none of Leza’s complaints warrant reversal and affirms the conviction and death sentence.
- The record includes analysis of Miranda and Article 38.22 waiver voluntariness and intelligibility, grand jury involvement, jury unanimity for guilt versus party liability, and admissibility of punishment-phase evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Leza’s video-recorded statement | Leza argues Miranda and Article 38.22 violations render the statement invalid | State contends waiver was voluntary and intelligent despite heroin use | Waiver valid; statements admissible |
| Grand jury involvement in death-penalty decision | Apprendi-based claims require grand jury involvement for death penalty | Claims defaulted or meritless under precedent | Claim rejected; no reversible error |
| Guilt-phase unanimity on principal versus party liability | Jury must unanimously decide whether Leza acted as principal or as a party | Law allows non-unanimity on theory of liability; essential elements unified | No error; no requirement for unanimous verdict on status as principal or party |
| Right to present a complete punishment-defense | Exclusion of Trevino’s out-of-court statement violated Holmes v. South Carolina and constitutional rights | Constitutional claim not preserved; no reversible error | Claim rejected without reaching merits; preserved issues deficient |
| Notice and handling of extraneous evidence/mistrial correction | Notice of Porter's extraneous-evidence testimony was deficient; mistrial warranted | Notice adequate; instruction to disregard sufficed | No reversible error; instruction to disregard adequate; mistrial not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (police coercion not present; drug use alone not coercive for voluntariness)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (waiver must be knowing and voluntary when warnings understood)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (voluntariness of Article 38.22 rights can be affected by non-police factors)