Manuel Reyna Cantu v. the State of Texas
13-20-00211-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- In 2004 Manuel Reyna Cantu and Aracely Garza Cantu were convicted by jury of money laundering; Manuel received 8 years confinement (with 10 years community supervision) and Aracely 5 years (with 10 years community supervision).
- They completed community supervision; in April 2014 the court discharged them, set aside convictions, and dismissed indictments under article 42.12 §20.
- In January 2020 the Cantus filed a joint post-conviction habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on multiple grounds.
- Alleged deficiencies: failure to obtain a ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress, eliciting or opening the door to collateral-forfeiture and Manuel’s arrest-history evidence, failure to move for severance, and failure to exclude drug-testing evidence.
- The trial court denied relief and declined an evidentiary hearing; the Cantus appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of habeas relief and refusal to hold a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to obtain ruling on motion to suppress | Counsel erred by not obtaining a pretrial ruling on suppression of evidence/consent allegedly tainted by prolonged detention | Detention was reasonable under totality of circumstances; appellants failed to show a ruling would have changed the outcome | No ineffective assistance — detention found reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Opening door to collateral-forfeiture evidence | Cross-examination about forfeiture opened admission of damaging forfeiture documents | Any error was harmless because other strong evidence supported conviction | No ineffective assistance — no reasonable probability of different result |
| Eliciting Manuel’s arrest history / severance request | Counsel elicited prior-arrest testimony; Aracely’s counsel should have moved to sever | No admissible prior convictions were established; severance not required | No ineffective assistance — testimony not shown prejudicial; no severance needed |
| Failure to exclude drug-testing evidence | Counsel failed to exclude inconclusive/possible erroneous drug-test results | Testimony was inconclusive and may have aided defense; strategic choice to expose testing flaws | No ineffective assistance — no reasonable probability of different outcome; evidence otherwise strong |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing on Article 11.072 petition | Requested hearing to develop record | Court may resolve non-frivolous petitions on the record; records and affidavits were sufficient | No abuse of discretion — hearing not required where issues resolvable from records |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deferential review of trial-court factual findings in postconviction claims)
- Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (failure to pursue pretrial motion is not ineffective unless motion had merit and would have changed outcome)
- Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (reasonable-suspicion analysis under totality of circumstances)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (strong presumption that counsel’s performance is within reasonable professional assistance)
- Ex parte Cummins, 169 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (trial court need not hold hearing when issues can be resolved from the record)
- Ex parte Reed, 402 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (standard of appellate review for denial of habeas relief)