Tommy Coronado v. State
431 S.W.3d 744
Tex. App.2014Background
- Appellant Tommy Coronado was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child, enhanced, and sentenced to 60 years plus a $5,000 fine.
- Indictment charged two offenses: indecency with a child and sexual contact with a child, with a prior robbery enhancement from 1985.
- State sought to allow the child complainant to testify with a support person present under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.074.
- Defense objected that a support person could prompt testimony and diminish confrontation rights; State argued necessity due to child's age and counseling history.
- The trial court found, by a preponderance, that the support person would aid reliability and not prejudice the jury; the trial proceeded with the support person present.
- Jury acquitted on aggravated sexual assault but convicted on indecency with a child; judgment noted a second enhancement as true and included various court costs totaling $736.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the Article 38.074 issue | Coronado | Coronado | Issues not preserved for review |
| Sufficiency of necessity showing for a support person | State | Coronado | Sufficient evidence of necessity; not likely to prejudice jurors |
| Risk of prejudice from a support person | State | Coronado | No substantial prejudice shown; permissible |
| Judgmented court costs correctness | Coronado | Coronado | Costs properly supported by statutorily authorized fees; affirmed |
| Reformation of judgment to correct degree of offense | Judgment reformed: indecency with a child is a second-degree felony; remove second enhancement reference |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (forfeiture of due process argument when not preserved in trial court)
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (due process right to present a defense subject to forfeiture)
- Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (preservation requires specific timely objection and adverse ruling)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (statutory basis for court costs supported)
- Ramirez v. State, 336 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (reformation of judgment when record contains corrective information)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (authority to reform judgments nunc pro tunc)