Pedro P. Morales v. State
03-15-00227-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- Pedro Perez Morales was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (third-degree felony); tried before a jury March 23–24, 2015; jury found him guilty and assessed 5 years TDCJ + $2,000 fine.
- Police stopped Morales for expired registration, discovered invalid license and no insurance, arrested him, and conducted an inventory search of the towed vehicle and trunk.
- Officers recovered a loaded Ruger .22 revolver inside a black drawstring/zipper bag in the trunk along with other items; in-car video/audio captured Morales saying something like “they’re going to find that gun.”
- Morales had prior convictions and a recent probation/revocation proceeding (including shock probation) in cause C‑10‑0321‑SB; the State moved to cumulate/run consecutively the current sentence with the prior sentence.
- Trial defense rested without witnesses; counsel objected successfully to certain testimony about shock probation; no suppression motion or search-and-seizure challenge was raised at trial.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders-style brief concluding after review that no nonfrivolous appeal grounds exist and advising Morales of his rights to file a pro se brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held (Counsel / Record Conclusion) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of firearm | Firearm was found in vehicle owned/used by Morales; his recorded remark and ownership/possession facts support constructive possession | Morales denied knowledge of the gun (at motion to revoke) and claimed he had loaned the car | Counsel: Evidence is sufficient; recorded comment and items in vehicle remove reasonable doubt |
| Validity of inventory search / admissibility of evidence | Inventory search of impounded vehicle was proper given arrest and lack of insurance/registration | Potential argument that closed containers should not have been opened; no suppression motion was filed | Counsel: Search issue not raised at trial; mixed precedent (Autran plurality vs. later appellate decisions); counsel found no meritorious basis for appeal |
| Effectiveness of trial counsel | N/A (State not arguing ineffective assistance) | Trial counsel could have challenged the inventory search but otherwise cross-examined officers and argued to jury | Counsel concluded trial representation was effective under Strickland/Stafford standards |
| Cumulative (consecutive) sentence and punishment phase rulings | State requested consecutive/cumulative sentence based on priors and alleged perjury; evidence and priors support cumulation | Morales opposed but record shows prior revocation and other convictions | Trial court granted State’s motion to cumulate; counsel found no error in punishment phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for court-appointed counsel who believes appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (guidance on appellate counsel procedures for frivolous appeals)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for effective assistance of counsel)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (ineffective-assistance framework in Texas)
- Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (plurality opinion on limits of inventory searches and opening closed containers)
- Trujillo v. State, 952 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1997) (appellate decision allowing opening containers during inventory searches)
- Madison v. State, 922 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1996) (similar authority on inventory searches)