State v. Gutierrez
541 S.W.3d 91
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Rene Gutierrez was tried by a jury on multiple assault-related charges; after the jury was sworn, a juror disclosed he knew the State's first witness, Officer Ruben Ramirez.
- The trial judge questioned the juror, found no actual bias, but offered the parties the option to proceed with eleven jurors if they agreed.
- Defense counsel advised (or acquiesced to) proceeding with eleven jurors; the State agreed; the juror was dismissed and an 11-member jury convicted Gutierrez on three counts and acquitted on two.
- Gutierrez moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance because counsel failed to advise him to request a mistrial to preserve a 12-member jury; the trial court granted the new trial without detailed findings.
- The court of appeals affirmed the new-trial grant, finding counsel likely provided deficient advice and that prejudice existed because a mistrial likely would have been granted and the State only had to convince eleven jurors.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed: it held the record did not show the trial court likely would have granted a mistrial nor that the trial court would have abused its discretion in denying a mistrial based on juror bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel's advice to proceed with 11 jurors constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland | Gutierrez: counsel failed to advise him he could seek a mistrial to preserve a 12-member jury, and but for that deficiency he would have sought a mistrial | State: trial court found no actual juror bias, counsel made a strategic choice, and record does not show prejudice | Held: Court assumed deficiency but reversed on prejudice — record did not support a finding that a mistrial likely would have been granted or that denial would have been abusive |
| Whether a mistrial would likely have been granted if requested at trial | Gutierrez: juror's testimony and statements showed bias; a mistrial likely would have been granted | State: judge found no actual bias after voir dire; judge intended to proceed | Held: Record supports the trial judge’s contemporaneous finding of no bias; no reasonable basis to conclude this judge likely would have granted a mistrial |
| Whether withheld or misstated juror information deprived defendant of ability to exercise challenges fairly | Gutierrez: juror’s failure to disclose material relationship hindered peremptory and for-cause decisions | State: voir dire elicited the relationship; juror vacillated but affirmed impartiality; no harm shown | Held: Even viewed favorably to Gutierrez, the record admits reasonable but conflicting interpretations; defendant did not show the trial court would have abused discretion in denying a mistrial |
| Standard of review for new-trial grants based on ineffective assistance | Gutierrez: defer to trial court’s new-trial grant and implied findings | State: trial court abused discretion because findings not supported by record under Strickland prejudice prong | Held: Abuse-of-discretion review applies; appellate court erred by misapplying prejudice analysis — trial court’s grant cannot be sustained on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Franklin v. State, 138 S.W.3d 351 (Texas Crim. App.) (withheld juror information and harm analysis)
- Uranga v. State, 330 S.W.3d 301 (Texas Crim. App.) (procedure and fact issue for juror actual bias)
- Riley v. State, 378 S.W.3d 453 (Texas Crim. App.) (standard of review for new-trial rulings; viewing evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Texas Crim. App.) (deference to trial court credibility/demeanor findings)