Vidales, Sammy
PD-0705-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 17, 2015Background
- Around midnight on Oct. 7, 2012 Officer Justin Anderson responded to a domestic-disturbance call; the caller described a black-male suspect but the suspect had left before Anderson arrived.
- Eleven minutes later Anderson encountered an SUV in the apartment parking lot driven by Sammy Vidales (a Hispanic male); Anderson demanded the keys and ordered Vidales to stop; Vidales refused and drove away; Anderson did not pursue.
- About five hours later Anderson stopped what he believed to be the same SUV at a motel; during that stop Vidales was ordered out at gunpoint, was partially handcuffed, escaped to his vehicle, crashed into the patrol car and fled; a chase ensued and Vidales was later captured.
- Vidales was tried on a single count of evading detention with a vehicle; jury convicted and assessed punishment at 62 years (two prior enhancements found true). The State later conceded the initial apartment-lot detention lacked reasonable suspicion.
- On appeal the Amarillo Court of Appeals (substitute opinion) agreed the first detention was unlawful but sua sponte held Vidales waived challenge to the second stop and concluded the second encounter was supported by reasonable suspicion (invoking a police officer’s reasonable mistake about past facts); it reversed only the punishment and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Vidales' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial detention (element of evading) | Initial apartment-lot stop lacked reasonable suspicion; evidence insufficient for conviction | The State conceded the first stop lacked reasonable suspicion but argued the events constituted one continuous evading episode | Court of Appeals agreed first stop lacked reasonable suspicion but found waiver as to the motel stop and held the second stop supported reasonable suspicion; upheld conviction on that basis |
| Whether court of appeals may raise/decide unbriefed legal theory (good-faith mistake of fact) | Court improperly re-framed the case, raised and decided an issue (reasonable mistake/good faith) that neither party argued, violating adversarial process and jury factfinding | N/A (court acted sua sponte) | Vidales seeks review; court of appeals nonetheless relied on a reasonable-mistake rationale not presented by parties to uphold guilt; this procedural approach is contested |
| Unanimity / unit(s) of prosecution (one vs multiple evading events) | Two distinct encounters separated by five hours are separate units; jury unanimity error if not instructed to agree on same event | State maintained the facts showed one continuous evading episode | Court of Appeals allowed possibility of multiple conceptual events but concluded gravamen was single evading offense and found no reversible unanimity error; Vidales challenges that analysis as conflicting with precedent requiring unanimity instructions when multiple units are possible |
| Ineffective assistance based on trial counsel affidavit | Trial counsel’s affidavit admits counsel adopted a single-continuous-offense theory and omitted requests (quash, election, explanatory instruction); affidavit suffices to show deficient performance on direct appeal | Court of Appeals: record insufficiently developed on direct appeal; habeas is more appropriate | Court of Appeals declined to find ineffective assistance on direct appeal, treating record as inadequate; Vidales seeks review whether counsel affidavit can overcome presumption of reasonable representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 377 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (police officer’s reasonable mistake about past facts can sometimes support reasonable suspicion)
- Hobbs v. State, 175 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for when evading may be a continuing offense)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unanimity requirement when the jury may convict on differing factual events)
- Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (jury-charge/unanimity guidance for multiple units of prosecution)
- Bailey v. State, 201 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (limits on courts of appeals deciding issues not presented on appeal or below)
- Callaway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (courts should not permit ‘‘sandbagging’’ by advancing new grounds on appeal)
- Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (ineffective-assistance discussion where trial counsel affidavit informed the record)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime)