State v. Rosa Elena Arizmendi
07-15-00238-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 10, 2015Background
- Rosa Elena Arizmendi pleaded guilty on April 28, 2015 to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement (25-year sentence, $5,000 fine) and executed waivers including waiver of time to file a motion for new trial and notice of appeal.
- Six days after the plea, counsel for co-defendant Jose Cortez litigated a suppression hearing (May 4, 2015) in which Trooper Jered Snelgrooes testified about observing the vehicle cross the fog line/drive on the improved shoulder; the trial court in Cortez’s case granted suppression and suppressed evidence and statements obtained after the stop.
- Arizmendi filed a motion for new trial (May 15, 2015) and a motion in arrest of judgment, asserting the Cortez suppression hearing testimony constituted newly discovered evidence showing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court held a hearing on Arizmendi’s motion (June 9, 2015) where the reporter’s record of the Cortez suppression hearing and that court’s findings were admitted; on June 12, 2015 the trial court granted Arizmendi’s motion for new trial “in the interest of justice.”
- The State appealed the trial court’s order granting the new trial, arguing waiver, lack of new evidence, and that Zalman standards were not satisfied; Arizmendi’s appellee brief argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Arizmendi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizmendi waived the right to seek a new trial by signing plea waivers (including waiver of time to file) | Waivers executed with plea should preclude collateral or post-plea relief; permitting a late/new motion undermines plea formalities and plea bargaining. | Trial court retains discretion to entertain or allow motions despite prior waiver; nothing makes a waiver of time to file irrevocable; trial court implicitly permitted the motion by holding a hearing and granting it. | Trial court granted new trial; appellate review is for abuse of discretion (appellee argues no abuse). |
| Whether the Cortez suppression hearing produced “new evidence” that was unavailable at the time of Arizmendi’s plea | No new evidence; record shows State provided discovery and defense counsel had access to materials; alleged testimony was cumulative or impeaching. | Trooper’s cross-examination in Cortez’s hearing revealed factual details (typing while paralleling, lack of audio, positioning in left/pass lane, indications vehicle was decelerating to exit) that defense counsel could not have discovered by due diligence prior to the plea and which show lack of reasonable suspicion. | Trial court found the suppression hearing testimony constituted new evidence sufficient to support granting a new trial. |
| Whether the alleged new evidence was merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching (i.e., insufficient) | New evidence was not material to the legality of the stop or was merely impeachment/cumulative. | The testimony went to the core legal issue (absence of reasonable suspicion for the stop); it was material and likely would have produced a different result. | Trial court determined the testimony affected the legality of the stop and warranted a new trial. |
| Whether the trial court satisfied the Zalman criteria for granting a new trial in the interest of justice | The State contends Zalman’s requirements (specific valid legal ground; evidence in record; prejudice assessed under Rule 44.2) were not met or adequately explained. | Arizmendi contends her motion specified the legal ground, the Cortez reporter’s record substantiated it (admitted at hearing), and prejudice (a 25-year sentence obtained after a plea) was apparent and reviewable under appellate harmless-error standards. | Appellee argues Zalman prongs were satisfied; trial court’s order (granting new trial) stands absent an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court’s grant/denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion; right-ruling/wrong-reason doctrine)
- Estrada v. State, 149 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.]) (discussed by parties re: effect of plea waivers and motions for new trial)
- State v. Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sets three-prong framework for new trial in the interest of justice)