Martin Captillo Zamora Jr. v. State
05-16-01345-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- On Jan. 14 and 26, 2016, undercover Detective John Lising arranged buys of K2 from Martin Captillo Zamora Jr.; police later arrested Zamora and seized K2, packaging, and scales from his car.
- Zamora was indicted in two separate causes: delivery of a controlled substance (F16-00404-J) and possession with intent to deliver 4–400 grams (F16-70616-J).
- Zamora pleaded guilty to both offenses and pleaded true to an enhancement alleging the possession offense occurred within 1,000 feet of El Centro College.
- The trial court accepted the pleas, admitted two punishment-phase recordings (phone call and video of the Jan. 14 buy), and assessed 20 years (delivery) and 25 years (possession).
- The State later conceded that El Centro College is not a qualifying “school” under the statutory drug-free-zone enhancement; the Court of Appeals found the record affirmatively showed the enhancement was improper and remanded the possession cause for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Zamora's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency of evidence for enhancement (F16-70616-J) | No evidence supports the enhancement finding; it was improper and affected sentencing. | Plea of true relieves the State of proving enhancement unless record affirmatively shows it's improper. | Enhancement unsupported; evidence insufficient; issue sustained; punishment assessment reversed and remanded. |
| 2) Incorrect admonishment of minimum range | The trial court admonished him incorrectly (reflected enhanced range), so admonishment was improper. | Error conceded as to applicability but does not automatically require reversal of plea. | Did not require reversal of guilt; court need not reach separately because sufficiency disposition controls. |
| 3) Voluntariness of guilty plea | Plea involuntary because he was not informed of correct punishment range (due process violation). | Record not silent—Zamora had paperwork, was admonished correctly on the other case, and expressed awareness of possible severe penalties. | Plea voluntary on this record; issue overruled. |
| 4) Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge enhancement | Counsel’s failure to object to enhancement was deficient and prejudicial (5-year difference). | Even assuming deficient performance, record does not show Zamora would have declined the plea and gone to trial. | Ineffective-assistance claim fails on prejudice; issue overruled. |
| 5) Admission of phone and video recordings at punishment | Recordings were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial; admission should be excluded under Rule 403. | Recordings were probative of punishment (demeanor, familiarity, supply connections); brief in duration and not inflammatory. | Admission within trial court’s discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; issues overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings).
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing factors).
- Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Rule 403 application).
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (impact of unsupported jury findings on sentencing).
- Hopkins v. State, 487 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (plea of true relieves State of proof unless record affirmatively shows enhancement improper).
- Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (record must show defendant otherwise knew requisite plea information for voluntariness).
- Wood v. State, 486 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (sufficiency standard when reviewing enhancement findings).
- Ex parte Niswager, 335 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (prejudice standard for guilty plea context under Strickland).
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard).