Telly James Arrambide v. the State of Texas, 13-20-00135-CR

Background

Appellant Telly James Arrambide was indicted for repeated violation of a protective order; a jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at 25 years’ imprisonment, enhanced under § 12.42(d) based on two prior felony convictions.
During voir dire a venireperson disclosed her stepfather shared the Arrambide surname but stated she did not know the defendant or the complainant; defense counsel did not follow up and the venireperson was seated.
While the jury deliberated punishment, defense alleged the juror’s stepfather was related to the complainant and that the juror’s brother had been involved in a decades‑old altercation with Telly; the court held a hearing outside the jury’s presence.
At the hearing, Telly’s sister testified to limited, casual contact with the juror and recounted a 1994–95 fight involving the juror’s brother (the juror was not present); the trial court denied the mistrial motion.
Telly moved for a new trial but did not support the motion with an affidavit; the trial court denied a hearing. For enhancement, the State offered certified indictments and judgments, pen‑packs with photographs and fingerprint cards, and expert fingerprint matching; family testimony corroborated incarcerations.
On appeal Telly raised three issues: (1) juror withheld material information during voir dire (mistrial), (2) trial court abused discretion by not holding a new‑trial hearing, and (3) legally insufficient evidence supported the sentencing enhancements. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial based on juror withholding information during voir dire	Juror hid familial connection to parties and familiarity with defendant; that information was material and would have affected jury selection	Juror disclosed stepfather’s surname during voir dire; defense failed to ask follow‑ups so juror did not ‘‘withhold’’ information; evidence of familiarity was speculative	Denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion; defense was not diligent in voir dire and record supports implicit finding of no actual juror bias
Whether trial court erred by refusing a hearing on motion for new trial	Appellant renewed mistrial argument and sought a hearing to develop record	Motion lacked the affidavit required to raise matters not determinable from the record	No abuse of discretion; appellant failed to support motion with required affidavit so he was not entitled to a hearing
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove two prior felony convictions for enhancement	State failed to adequately link appellant to priors	State introduced certified judgments, pen‑packs with name/DOB/SSN/photos/fingerprint card, and expert fingerprint match plus family testimony	Evidence legally sufficient to prove both prior convictions; enhancement upheld

Key Cases Cited

Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (mistrial is appropriate only in extreme, highly prejudicial, incurable errors)
Gutierrez v. State, 541 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (withheld voir dire information warrants hearing to determine actual juror bias)
Gonzales v. State, 3 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (counsel must be diligent in voir dire; information is withheld only if diligence fails to elicit it)
Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (hearing on motion for new trial not automatic; motion must be supported by affidavit showing factual basis)
Henry v. State, 509 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (legal‑sufficiency review for proving prior convictions)
Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (pen‑pack and related records may be used to prove prior convictions)
Wood v. State, 486 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (responsibility of counsel to ask specific voir dire questions to elicit needed information)