Ramon Padilla v. State
08-12-00234-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Aug 12, 2015Background
- Ramon Padilla and Laura Diaz-Padilla separated in Feb 2011; on March 4–5, 2011 Padilla assaulted Laura, threatened to kill her and her children, removed her phone, drove her to remote locations, and confined her overnight in motels.
- Laura reported the events after speaking with her pastor; photos and a 911 call were introduced at trial.
- A grand jury indicted Padilla for aggravated assault, assault family violence by strangulation, obstruction (Count III), and aggravated kidnapping (Count IV); jury acquitted on Counts I and II and convicted on Counts III and IV.
- At punishment the trial court implicitly found a prior felony conviction alleged for enhancement to be true; court sentenced Padilla to 20 years on Count III and 30 years on Count IV.
- Padilla appealed raising: (1) improper jury argument (prosecutor commented in rebuttal), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (opening door to extraneous-offense evidence and failing to call punishment witnesses), (3) trial-court comment during deadlock allegedly coercive; the State sought modification to reflect the enhancement finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Padilla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor's rebuttal comment improperly referenced Padilla's failure to present evidence and warranted mistrial | State: prosecutor’s comment was invited rebuttal and court cured by sustaining objection and instructing jury to disregard | Padilla: comment impermissibly commented on failure to testify and required mistrial | Court: error not preserved — objection sustained and no timely mistrial motion; issue overruled |
| Ineffective assistance — opening door to extraneous-offense evidence | State: evidence admissible to rebut defensive theory of fabrication and was also properly admitted after defense questioning | Padilla: counsel opened the door and thus was ineffective | Court: no deficient performance shown because evidence was admissible on an alternate theory; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call punishment witnesses | State: record silent on availability/benefit of witnesses; counsel’s strategy presumed reasonable | Padilla: counsel’s failure prejudiced punishment phase | Court: Padilla failed to show witnesses were available or beneficial; claim fails |
| Trial court comment during Allen charge coerced jury; objection excused | State: comment was not preserved because Padilla did not object or move for mistrial | Padilla: court’s remark coerced jurors and could not be cured by objection after the fact | Court: Padilla waived complaint by failing to make a timely, specific request; issue overruled |
| Modification of judgment — enhancement paragraph finding | State: trial court implicitly found enhancement true based on stipulation discussion and admission of prior conviction evidence | Padilla: (no successful challenge) | Court: modified judgment to reflect enhancement found true and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (preservation requirements for jury argument complaints)
- Griggs v. State, 213 S.W.3d 923 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (timeliness of mistrial motions)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (presumption of reasonable assistance where record is silent)
- Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to rebut fabrication defense)
- Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (Rule 404(b) purposes including rebuttal of defensive theories)
- Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (preservation of judicial-comment error by timely, specific request)
- Barnett v. State, 189 S.W.3d 272 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (trial-court conduct and preservation when harm cannot be cured by instruction)
- Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (preservation and preferred procedure for judicial-comment complaints)
- Torres v. State, 391 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (reforming judgment to reflect implicit finding on enhancement)