Romero, Silvia
PD-0816-15
| Tex. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- In September 2001 two‑year‑old M.I. presented with catastrophic head and abdominal injuries (large skull fracture, subdural hematoma, torn pancreas) and long‑term severe disability; emergency physicians and neurosurgeon concluded injuries were non‑accidental and required neurosurgery.
- Appellant Silvia Romero called 911; she gave inconsistent accounts (fall from couch/rocking chair; later admitted pushing the child) and then fled to Mexico for several years before being arrested in 2011.
- At trial the State presented medical testimony that the injuries were inflicted; Romero testified she was not present and the injury was accidental; the jury convicted Romero of injury to a child and assessed life imprisonment and a fine.
- On direct appeal the Fifth Court of Appeals modified the judgment to cite Tex. Penal Code § 22.04 (injury to a child) and to reflect a deadly‑weapon finding (deadly weapon, not a firearm), and affirmed as modified.
- Romero sought discretionary review arguing (1) legal insufficiency to prove intentional or knowing causation, (2) egregious jury‑charge error (incorrect definition of "intentionally"), and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/depose experts, failure to present defense expert, failure to object to charge and hearsay, and bad plea advice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Romero) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove intentional or knowing causation | Evidence proves at most that Romero intentionally engaged in an act (pushing) but not that she intended or knew the result (serious bodily injury); conviction should be reversed or reduced to reckless conduct | Medical proof of severe, non‑accidental injuries, inconsistent statements, flight, and circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to infer intentional or knowing causation | Court of Appeals: evidence sufficient to support conviction for intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a child (Jackson standard applied) |
| Jury‑charge error: incorrect definition of "intentionally" (included "engage in the conduct or") | Error allowed the jury to convict based on intent to perform the act rather than intent to cause the result; because the State argued intent to act, Romero suffered egregious harm | Although definition erred, application paragraphs properly limited culpability to causing the result; no egregious harm shown because verdict could rest on knowing causation | Court of Appeals: charge contained error but Romero did not show egregious harm; no reversal on this ground |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/present expert, failure to object, bad plea advice) | Counsel’s numerous omissions deprived Romero of meaningful adversarial testing, prejudiced plea decision and trial reliability; some errors presumed prejudicial (Cronic) | State did not prevail on this in the opinion — appellate record supported conclusion that error claims did not mandate reversal | Court of Appeals: addressed on appeal but denied relief; conviction affirmed as modified |
| Trial‑court judgment defects (cross‑appeal) | N/A (Romero did not contest modification) | Judgment incorrectly cited §22.01 and omitted deadly‑weapon finding; should be corrected to §22.04 and reflect deadly‑weapon use | Court of Appeals: sua sponte modified judgment to cite Penal Code §22.04 and to show finding: "Deadly Weapon, Not a Firearm." |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the constitutional standard for legal‑sufficiency review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances where prejudice may be presumed for extreme attorney failures)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for harm review of jury‑charge error; egregious harm required when no timely objection)
- Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (factors for assessing egregious harm: charge, evidence, argument, record)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (instruction on appellate deference in sufficiency review)
- Patterson v. State, 49 S.W.3d 294 (discusses injury‑to‑a‑child as result‑oriented offense and mental‑state analysis)