State v. Arizmendi
2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 468
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Rosa Arizmendi pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with intent to deliver >400 grams meth and received 25 years and a $5,000 fine on April 28, 2015; she signed waivers including a written waiver of motion for new trial.
- On May 4, 2015, Arizmendi’s co‑defendant Cortez litigated a motion to suppress (video + officer testimony); the trial court granted the suppression motion based primarily on the stop video.
- Arizmendi filed a timely motion for new trial (May 15, 2015) asserting the verdict was contrary to law/evidence and that the officer’s testimony at Cortez’s suppression hearing was newly discovered evidence; counsel submitted an affidavit mirroring those claims.
- At the new‑trial hearing counsel admitted she had reviewed the video before the plea, had not advised Arizmendi of a suppression motion option, and conceded her failure to advise (arguing ineffective assistance); the State objected that ineffective‑assistance was untimely.
- The trial court granted a new trial "in the interest of justice;" the court of appeals affirmed, finding the officer’s testimony was newly discovered and not cumulative; the State appealed to this Court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding (1) Arizmendi’s new‑evidence showing failed (lack of diligence; most evidence was cumulative; officer’s subjective comment collateral), and (2) the ineffective‑assistance claim was untimely and barred because it was raised after the 30‑day window and the State objected.
Issues
| Issue | Arizmendi’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new trial could be granted based on newly discovered evidence (officer’s testimony from co‑defendant’s suppression hearing and suppression ruling) | The suppression hearing testimony and ruling were new and unavailable at plea time and would likely have produced a different result | Evidence was not newly discovered: video existed before plea; testimony was discoverable with diligence; ruling is not "evidence" | Court: No. The suppression ruling is a legal conclusion (not evidence); most testimony was cumulative of video; failure to obtain it was lack of diligence, so new‑evidence test fails |
| Whether Arizmendi waived the right to a motion for new trial and whether the trial court could ignore that waiver | Waiver was not knowing/voluntary because counsel failed to advise her; trial court implicitly permitted filing by setting a hearing | Waiver in plea papers barred relief | Court: did not decide waiver definitively because disposition based on other grounds; noted waiver argument but resolved case on merits/timeliness |
| Whether counsel’s ineffectiveness (not raised in writing within 30 days) could be considered at the new‑trial hearing | Counsel argued ineffectiveness at hearing (not in written motion) and that plea was involuntary as a result | State: ineffective‑assistance claim was raised outside the 30‑day window and was objectionable | Court: Ineffective‑assistance claim was untimely; trial court barred from considering it after the State objected; therefore it cannot support the new trial |
| Whether the officer’s subjective comment (van was "clean") was material/new | That comment was new testimony not seen before plea and contributed to the suppression outcome | The comment was subjective, irrelevant to objective legality of stop, and collateral | Court: The comment was collateral (subjective intent irrelevant); not sufficient noncumulative evidence to satisfy Article 40.001 test |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App.) (articulating limits on granting new trials and requirement that motion allege a valid legal claim supported by evidence)
- State v. Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App.) (framework for when a trial court may grant a new trial: valid claim, supporting evidence, and prejudice)
- State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court may consider untimely amended new‑trial grounds absent timely State objection; but untimely grounds cannot support appellate review if objected to)
- Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussion regarding guilty pleas and related due‑process principles)
- Ex parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App.) (waiver of collateral relief unenforceable where plea involuntariness was caused by counsel incompetence)
- In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.) (civil precedent limiting use of "interest of justice" as an independent basis for granting a new trial)