Manuel Ruiz Constancio v. State
03-14-00411-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 18, 2015Background
- Appellant Manuel Ruiz Constancio pled guilty in 2012 to robbery (reduced from aggravated robbery) and received deferred adjudication probation for 10 years.
- The State filed a motion to revoke deferred adjudication (Aug. 19, 2013) alleging: conviction for indecency with a child, failure to complete 240 community‑service hours, failure to report in person, and failure to complete a theft‑by‑check course (the fourth allegation was abandoned).
- Constancio was later convicted (January 2014) of indecency with a child by sexual contact in a separate case; the revocation hearing judicially noticed that trial record and heard probation‑violation evidence in April 2014.
- Probation officer testified Constancio missed at least one office report and had completed only ~55.5 of the required 240 community‑service hours; she recommended revocation based on noncompliance and the new conviction.
- Constancio testified he fell behind on service hours due to his employer's representation and denied the underlying robbery and indecency offenses (admitting a prior guilty plea to obtain probation).
- The trial court found violations, revoked deferred adjudication, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Constancio to 10 years in TDCJ; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Constancio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to adjudicate guilt after revocation | Appellant's prior guilty plea/stipulation and the proven probation violations suffice to adjudicate guilt | Contends errors exist and denies underlying offenses | Court held plea and findings sufficient to adjudicate guilt; no reversible error found |
| Probation violation — community service | Constancio failed to complete required hours within probation conditions | He claimed supervisor told him he was caught up and sought to make hours up later | Court found noncompliance proved and counted as violation supporting revocation |
| Probation violation — reporting requirement | Constancio missed at least one in‑person report to probation officer | He offered explanations and testimony of efforts to comply | Court found failure to report established and supported revocation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State asserts counsel was effective; appellate counsel found no meritorious issues | Constancio asserts counsel ineffective (implicitly by seeking review) | Court applied Strickland standard and concluded trial counsel performed effectively; no prejudice shown |
| Punishment within statutory range | State imposed statutory punishment (10 years) | Constancio argued for leniency; no excessive‑punishment claim successful | Sentence is within statutory range and not excessive; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appellate counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance for Anders‑style appellate filings)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (ineffective assistance standard discussion in Texas context)
- Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (burden of proof for ineffective assistance claims)
- Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of Strickland in Texas)
- Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (sentence within statutory range is not cruel or unusual)
- Delacruz v. State, 167 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (same principle regarding punishment within statutory limits)