Marcos Enrique Urdaneta v. the State of Texas, 02-23-00338-CR

Marcos Enrique Urdaneta pleaded guilty to three counts of providing false information on motor-vehicle title applications as part of a plea bargain and was given five years of deferred-adjudication community supervision.
The State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging Urdaneta violated his community supervision by committing indecency with a child (Salma, age 15).
At the revocation hearing, evidence was presented regarding alleged sexual contact by Urdaneta with Salma while swimming and later under a pavilion at a lake gathering.
Salma testified that Urdaneta touched her genitals under her swimsuit in the water and grabbed her breast over her clothing under the pavilion; other witnesses in Urdaneta’s group denied seeing inappropriate contact.
The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated Urdaneta guilty on all three original counts, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement, with sentences to run concurrently.
Urdaneta appealed, arguing evidentiary insufficiency and that he was deprived of a fair hearing and sentencing due to alleged judicial bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on indecency with a child	Evidence insufficient to show Urdaneta touched child’s genitals or breast	Child’s testimony sufficient; intent can be inferred from conduct	Evidence sufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion
Sufficiency of evidence on intent to arouse/gratify	No evidence of sexual intent	Intent inferred from conduct and circumstances; child’s testimony adequate	Evidence sufficient; intent properly inferred
Judicial impartiality during hearing	Judge relied on extrajudicial knowledge re: witness credibility	Judge clarified conflicting testimony and acted within judicial role	No bias shown; judge acted impartially
Judicial bias in sentencing	Judge showed bias against sex offenses involving children	No bias; sentencing comments were based on record evidence	No bias shown; actions presumed correct

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for orders revoking community supervision)
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial court as judge of credibility; standard for reviewing credibility determinations)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (when judicial remarks show bias and impermissible partiality)
Quinn v. State, 958 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (opinions based on evidence at trial generally do not indicate judicial partiality)
McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (intent for indecency with a child can be inferred from conduct and circumstances)