Mike Alvin Ruiz v. State
06-15-00084-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 7, 2015Background
- Appellant Mike Alvin Ruiz pled guilty (open plea) to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest; the trial court found the plea supported and assessed punishment (30 and 20 years).
- During the sentencing hearing Ruiz testified in mitigation; while he was testifying the trial judge ordered his mother (Ms. Ruiz) removed from the courtroom sua sponte for allegedly attempting to influence or testify for him.
- The record contains no request by either party to exclude the public, no explicit prior admonition recorded, and no on-the-record findings or consideration of alternatives by the court before removal.
- Ms. Ruiz was later allowed back to testify; record unclear whether she returned for sentencing.
- On appeal Ruiz argues the court’s removal of his mother violated his state and federal right to a public trial/sentencing hearing and that the error is structural (reversible without showing harm).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by removing Ruiz’s mother from the courtroom during his testimony/sentencing | Ruiz: Court closed part of the proceedings sua sponte without advancing an overriding interest, considering alternatives, or making findings; closure of a public proceeding is structural error requiring reversal. | State: (Record lacks an articulated justification; implicit argument would be courtroom orderliness and preventing coaching; removal within court’s control.) | Appellant argues reversible constitutional error under Waller/Press-Enterprise; court must find an overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives considered, and make findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public-trial right benefits the accused and extends to voir dire and related proceedings)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (party seeking closure must show overriding interest, consider alternatives, narrowly tailor closure, and make findings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (First Amendment public-access principles and historical basis for public proceedings)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (public trial requirement vindicates fairness and public confidence)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (state must show compelling interest narrowly served by closure)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. discussion of public-trial principles and structural-error consequences)