Domanguex, Aaron Frank ( 2015 )

PD-0093-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 3/7/2015 10:27:37 PM
Accepted 3/10/2015 9:00:57 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
No. PD-0093-15 CLERK
IN THE
Court of Criminal Appeals
At Austin
__________
AARON FRANK DOMANGUEX,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
_________
Cause number 1388369
In the 262nd Judicial District Court
Of Harris County, Texas
Cause number 14-14-00122-CR
In the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Judicial District
_________
Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review
__________
KELLY ANN SMITH
Texas Bar No. 00797867
Kelly.A.Smith.06@gmail.com
March 10, 2015 P.O. Box 10751
Houston, TX 77206
281-734-0668
Counsel for Appellant
Ground For Review
The Court of Appeals erred by holding the trial court
did not err by considering evidence of prior
convictions which was admitted by an invalid
stipulation.
Statement Regarding Oral Argument
Because this case involves important issues regarding this state's jurisprudence, the
appellant submits that oral argument would benefit this Court and pursuant to TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.4 (c), requests the opportunity to present oral argument.
i
No. PD-0093-15
IN THE
Court of Criminal Appeals
At Austin
__________
AARON FRANK DOMANGUEX,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
_________
Cause number 1388369
In the 262nd Judicial District Court
Of Harris County, Texas
Cause number 14-14-00122-CR
In the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Judicial District
_________
Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
The appellant, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Petition for
Discretionary Review and urges this Court to grant discretionary review in this case
and in support demonstrates the following.
ii
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The Appellant has provided a complete list of all interested parties’ names below,
under TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
The appellant or convicted person:
Aaron Frank Domanguex  Appellant
Counsel for the appellant:
Kelly Ann Smith Counsel on appeal
PO Box 10751
Houston, Texas 77206
Phone: (281) 734-0668
David Garza  Counsel at trial
102 S Lockwood Drive
Houston, Texas 77011
Phone: (713) 228-4341
Counsel for the State:
Devon Anderson  District Attorney of Harris County
Harris County Criminal Justice Center
James O'Donnell  Assistant District Attorney at trial
Harris County Criminal Justice Center
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 755-5800
Trial Judge:
Hon. Denise Bradley  Presiding Judge of the 338th District Court
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
GROUND FOR REVIEW................................................................................................. I
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................................... I
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................................... III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................. V
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...............................................................2
GROUND FOR REVIEW .................................................................................................3
REASONS FOR REVIEW ................................................................................................3
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE & SERVICE ..................................................................7
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bryant v. State,
187 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ........................................................................ 5
Statutes
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15 ........................................................................................ 6
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07 ...................................................................................... 4
Rules
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.............................................................................................................. i
TEX. R. EVID. 404 ................................................................................................................ 4
v
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The State accused the appellant of aggravated assault. (CR 9). The indictment
alleged that the Appellant caused bodily injury to Herman Jordan by striking Mr.
Jordan with a bat (CR 9). The indictment also alleged that the bat was a deadly
weapon (CR 9). The Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to the
indictment’s allegations. The Honorable Denise Bradley, Presiding Judge of the 262 nd
District Court of Harris County, Texas, held a punishment hearing then assessed the
Appellant’s punishment at eight years in prison (CR 92). The Appellant filed a notice
of appeal (CR 95).
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the appellant’s conviction in Aaron
Frank Domanguex v. The State of Texas, No. 14-14-00122-CR, (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] December 9, 2014). Neither party filed a motion for rehearing.
2
GROUND FOR REVIEW
The Court of Appeals erred by holding the trial court
did not err by considering evidence of prior
convictions which was admitted by an invalid
stipulation.
REASONS FOR REVIEW
The Appellant waived a jury trial and pled guilty to aggravated assault, then the
trial court assessed the Appellant’s punishment after considering a list of the
Appellant’s purported prior convictions, which were admitted as an invalid
stipulation. Because the stipulation was invalid, the trial court erred in considering
this stipulation when assessing the Appellant’s punishment and the court of appeals
erred by holding otherwise.
Appellant waived a jury trial then pled guilty to aggravated assault (CR 79-80;
RR 5). The trial court conducted a punishment on January 14, 2014 (RR 5). At the
beginning of the hearing, the State informed the trial court: “we have a stipulation to
the [Appellant’s] priors” (RR 6). The State offered state’s exhibit #1, which was a
document entitled “Supplemental Notice of Intention to Use Evidence of Prior
Convictions and Extraneous Offenses” that the State had filed with the district clerk
(RR 6; State’s exhibit #1). State’s #1 is a list of convictions that the State intended to
use at trial and is an intended to comply with the Texas Rules of Evidence 404(b) &
3
609 as well as Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 37.07. See TEX. R. EVID. 404 & 609;
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07.
After the state offered exhibit #1, the Appellant stated he had no objection,
and the trial court admitted State’s exhibit #1 (RR 7).
The following is evidence adduced during the punishment hearing. In May
2013, Herman Jordan was hanging out in a “trap house” smoking some crack (RR
10). The Appellant, with whom Mr. Jordan was acquainted, was in the “trap house”
also (RR 11-12, 22). Referring to the Appellant, Herman Jordan testified “He
whopped my ass with that bat.” (RR 13). Mr. Jordan testified that the Appellant hit
him in the head once with a bat because Mr. Jordan would not give the Appellant
money to buy drugs (RR 12-15, 17). As a result, Mr. Jordan suffered a temporary
vision loss, and the wound required three staples to close (RR 15-16).
The Appellant acknowledged he plead guilty and admitted he hit Mr. Jordan.
But the Appellant claimed he hit Mr. Jordan not with a bat but with a table leg,
because Mr. Jordan owed the Appellant money (RR 27). The Appellant lost control
of himself (RR 27). The Appellant expressed remorse for hitting Mr. Jordan and said
the two were “good associates” (RR 30). The Appellant admitted he had two
previous felony convictions for which he served time in the county jail (RR 33).
After both sides presented evidence, the Appellant asked the trial court to place
him on community supervision (RR 48-9). The State asked the trial court to sentence
the Appellant to ten years in prison (RR 50).
4
The trial court stated that she had an opportunity to review the Appellant’s
criminal history and assessed his punishment at eight years in prison (RR 51).
The court of appeals erred by holding the Appellant’s “criminal history” based
upon an invalid stipulation was not erroneously admitted because the appellant
“acknowledged” them. It is true a defendant may stipulate to evidence against him,
and the stipulation is a kind of judicial admission. Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397, 400
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). But State’s exhibit #1 is not a stipulation and is not actually
evidence of anything. State’s exhibit #1 did not provide any evidentiary support for
the State's punishment case, and the trial court should not have relied on it as proof of
the Appellant’s criminal history.
In this case the purported stipulation did not state that the evidence would
prove the contents of the stipulation nor was it approved by the trial court in writing.
Thus it violated Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which, in
relevant part, states:
No person can be convicted of a felony except upon
the verdict of a jury duly rendered and recorded,
unless the defendant, upon entering a plea, has in
open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in
writing in accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14....
The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in
such case consents in writing, in open court, to waive
the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination
of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral
stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the
introduction of testimony by affidavits, written
statements of witnesses, and any other documentary
5
evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such
waiver and consent must be approved by the court in
writing, and be filed in the file of the papers of the
cause.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15.
In this case, the “stipulation” regarding the Appellant’s prior criminal history
was deficient because it did not say that the evidence will prove the content of the
stipulation and was not approved by the trial court in writing. Furthermore, the
“stipulation” created no evidentiary support for the State's punishment case because
there was no agreement about the truthfulness of the evidence. State’s exhibit #1 is
merely notice of the state’s intention to use certain evidence at trial. Because state’s
exhibit #1 is not a valid stipulation, the trial court erred by relying on it as evidence of
the Appellant’s criminal history when assessing his punishment. The court of appeals
erred by holding the trial court did not err in considering appellant’s prior record in
assessing punishment
PRAYER
The appellant respectfully urges this Honorable Court to grant the Appellant’s
Petition for Discretionary Review.
______ /s /___________________
KELLY ANN SMITH
Texas Bar No. 00797867
6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE & SERVICE
Under TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 9.5 & 68.11, this certifies that this document contains
2243 words and the undersigned served a copy of this petition on the State of Texas and
the State Prosecuting Attorney at the following addresses:
Devon Anderson Lisa C. McMinn
Harris County District Attorney P.O. Box 13046
1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Capitol Station
Houston, Texas 77002 Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-1660
______ /s /___________________
KELLY ANN SMITH
Texas Bar No. 00797867
P.O. Box 10752
Houston, TX 77206
281-734-0668
7
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 9, 2014.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-14-00122-CR
AARON FRANK DOMANGUEX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1388369
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Aaron Frank Domanguex appeals his conviction for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02. In a single issue
appellant argues the trial court erred in considering evidence of prior convictions,
which was admitted by an invalid stipulation. We affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without
2
an agreement as to punishment. Following his guilty plea the trial court held a
hearing at which the complainant and appellant testified. At the beginning of the
hearing, the following discussion took place:
MR. GARZA [defense counsel]: Your Honor, we do have some
stipulations we’d like to introduce first, as far as records, any Brady
material and any convictions and extraneous for the Defendant, also,
Your Honor.
MR. O’DONNELL [prosecutor]: That’s correct.
THE COURT: You have a stipulation?
MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, we have a stipulation to the Defendant’s
priors. This is a list of the Defendant’s prior criminal history as well
as relevant impeachable criminal history of the State’s witness.
THE COURT: Okay. I guess, for purposes of this hearing, I’m going
to mark the — and really you just, it’s just a Supplemental Notice of
Intention to Use Evidence of Prior Convictions and Extraneous
Offenses that were filed with the Court. So, for purposes of this
hearing, I will mark it as State’s Exhibit No. 1.
MR. O’DONNELL: That’s fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any objection then to State’s Exhibit No. 1?
MR. GARZA: There is not, Your Honor.
In his sole issue on appeal appellant argues the trial court erred in
considering State’s Exhibit No. 1 because it was an improper stipulation pursuant
to article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant argues that
because State’s Exhibit No. 1 was called a “stipulation” that article 1.15 applies to
the trial court’s consideration of the evidence.
Article 1.15, entitled “Jury in felony,” provides:
No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a
jury duly rendered and recorded, unless the defendant, upon entering a
plea, has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in
writing in accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however,
that it shall be necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the
2
record showing the guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be
accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment and in no event
shall a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient
evidence to support the same. The evidence may be stipulated if the
defendant in such case consents in writing, in open court, to waive the
appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses, and
further consents either to an oral stipulation of the evidence and
testimony or to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written
statements of witnesses, and any other documentary evidence in
support of the judgment of the court. Such waiver and consent must
be approved by the court in writing, and be filed in the file of the
papers of the cause.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15.
This provision has been interpreted to require the proffer of evidence,
independent of a simple guilty plea, sufficient to establish culpability. Stringer v.
State, 241 S.W.3d 52, 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). However, it has been held to
apply “where a felony-defendant the right to trial by jury at the guilt stage” of the
prosecution. Id. Appellant was not at the guilt stage of the prosecution when the
State introduced evidence of his prior convictions. Appellant had pleaded
guilty prior to the punishment hearing.
Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in considering his “criminal
history” because State’s Exhibit No. 1 is not a valid stipulation. The stipulation,
entitled “Supplemental Notice of Intention to Use Evidence of Prior Convictions,”
contains a list of appellant’s known prior convictions, including two felony
convictions, 13 misdemeanor convictions, and one felony charge that was reduced
to a Class A misdemeanor. Three of the misdemeanor convictions were for assault.
Appellant testified to the two prior felony convictions contained in the stipulation
and admitted that he had “some assaults on [his] record.” On redirect examination
appellant acknowledged the prior misdemeanor and felony convictions.
3
“Regardless of the plea and whether the punishment be assessed by the
judge or the jury, evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant as to any
matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not limited to the prior
criminal record of the defendant[.]” Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 37.07 §
3(a)(1). Whether evidence of appellant’s prior criminal record was admitted
through the “stipulation” or appellant’s testimony, the trial court did not err in
considering appellant’s prior record in assessing punishment. We overrule
appellant’s sole issue. See id.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
1