James Garza v. State

ACCEPTED 04-15-00456-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/14/2015 2:34:44 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK NO.    04-­‐15-­‐00456-­‐CR     IN  THE  COURT  OF  APPEALS   FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH  COURT  OF  APPEALS  DISTRICT   SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SAN  ANTONIO,  TEXAS   10/14/15 2:34:44 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE   Clerk   JAMES  GARZA.     Appellant     V.     THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS,     Appellee       ON  APPEAL  FROM  THE  290th  DISTRICT  COURT   OF  BEXAR  COUNTY  TEXAS   CAUSE  NUMBER  2009-­‐CR-­‐12648A     BRIEF  FOR  THE  APPELLANT                                   EDWARD  F.  SHAUGHNESSY                206  E.  Locust  Street                 San  Antonio,  Texas  78212                 (210)  212-­‐6700                 (210)  212-­‐2178  (FAX)                 Shaughnessy727@gmail.com                 SBN  18134500                                     ORAL  ARGUMENT  REQUESTED                                 ATTORNEY  FOR  APPELLANT     TABLE  OF  CONTENTS     Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii Table of Interested Parties ...................................................................................... iii Table of Authorities..................................................................................................iv Brief for the Appellant .............................................................................................. v Summary of the Argument ...................................................................................... 6 Argument and Authorities ....................................................................................... 9 Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................10 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………………………………………....12                                 ii PARTIES  AND  COUNSEL           TRIAL  COUNSEL  FOR  THE  STATE:     WENDY  WILSON   Assistant  Criminal  District  Attorney   Bexar  County,  Texas   401  W.  Nueva   San  Antonio,  Texas  78205     TRIAL  COUNSEL  FOR  APPELLANT:     EDWARD  F.  SHAUGHNESSY,  III   206  E.  Locust   San  Antonio,  Texas  78212                             APPELLANT’S  ATTORNEY  ON  APPEAL:     EDWARD  F.  SHAUGHNESSY,  III         206  E.  Locust  Street                                                                                                                   San  Antonio,  Texas                                                                                                                     (210)212-­‐6700                                                                                                                                   (210)  212-­‐2178  Fax                                                                                                                   SBN  18134500       TRIAL  JUDGE:     MELISA  SKINNER   290th  Judicial  District   Bexar  County,  Texas     iii   TABLE  OF  AUTHORITIES       Cases     Bear  Cloud  v.  State,  334  P.3d  132  (Wyoming  2014)………………………………..……..10   Eddings  v.  Oklahoma,  102  S.  Ct.  869  (1987)………………………………………....………10   Miller  v.  Alabama,  _____  U.S._____,  132  S.  Ct.  2455  (2012)…………..………....7,  8,  9,  10   State  v.  Dull,  351  P.2d  641  (Kansas  2015)…………………………………………………….10     State  v.  Lyle,  854  N.W.2d  378  (Iowa  2014)………………………………………………...…10 iv NO.  04-­‐15-­‐00456-­‐CR         JAMES  GARZA,       §   COURT  OF  APPEALS,  FOURTH         Appellant       §     V.           §   COURT  OF  APPEALS  DISTRICT     THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS,     §         Appellee       §   SAN  ANTONIO,  TEXAS       BRIEF  FOR  THE  APPELLANT     TO  THE  HONORABLE  COURT  OF  APPEALS:         Now  comes  the  appellant,  James  Garza  and  files  this  brief  in  Cause   No.   04-­‐14-­‐00456-­‐CR.     The   appellant   appeals   from   a   judgment   of   the   290th  District  Court  of  Bexar  County,  Texas.     The   appellant   was   indicted   by   a   Bexar   County   grand   jury   for   the   offense  of  Capital  Murder  on  December  16,  2009.    He  was  subsequently   convicted   by   a   jury   and   sentenced   to   Life,   without   the   possibility   of   parole,   in   the   Texas   Department   of   Criminal   Justice-­‐   Institutional   Division.    That  conviction  was  and  sentence  was  appealed  to  this  Court.     On   October   12,   2012,   this   Court   affirmed   the   judgment   of   the   trial   Court   in   all   respects.   See:   Garza   v.   State,   (04-­‐22-­‐00891-­‐CR,   Tex.   App.-­‐San   5 Antonio,   October   24,   2012)   (2012   WL   5236048).     The   appellant   subsequently   sought   and   obtained   a   Petition   for   Discretionary   Review   to   the   Court   of   Criminal   Appeals.     On   June   11,   2014,   that   Court   reversed   the   judgment   of   this   Court   and   remanded   the   cause,   to   this   Court,   for   further   proceedings.     Garza   v.   State,   435   S.W.   3d   258   (Tex.   Crim.   App.   2014).     This  Court  subsequently  reversed  and  remanded  the  cause  to  the   trial  Court  for  purposes  of  resentencing.    Garza   v.   State,   453   S.W.3d   548   (Tex.  App.-­‐San  Antonio,  2014)     The   appellant   thereafter   appeared   in   the   290th   District   Court   for   purposes   of   resentencing.   (C.R.-­‐179,   180,   181)     Following   a   sentencing   hearing   conducted,   before   the   trial   Court,   the   appellant   was   sentenced   to   Life   in   the   Texas   Department   of   Criminal   Justice-­‐Institutional   Division.  (S.C.R.-­‐3,  4)    The  appellant  thereafter  filed  a  written  notice  of   appeal  and  this  appeal  was  pursued.  (C.R.-­‐173)           6                                                                              SUMMARY  OF  ARGUMENT           The  trial  Court  erred  in  refusing  to  provide  the  appellant  a   sentencing  hearing  that  complied  with  the  dictates  of  the  United  States   Supreme  Court  set  forth  in  Miller  v.  Alabama,  _____  U.S._____,  132  S.Ct.   2455  (2012).                         STATEMENT  OF  APPLICABLE  FACTS     Prior  to  the  sentencing  hearing,  ordered  by  this  Court  in  its   opinion  of  December  23,  2014,  the  appellant  caused  to  be  filed  a  written   Motion  fro  Appointment  of  an  Independent  Expert  Witness.  (C.R.-­‐167)     That  motion  sought  two  species  of  relief  from  the  trial  Court  prior  to  the   “resentencing”  hearing  ordered  by  this  Court.    It  sought  to  have  the  trial   Court  to  appoint  an  expert  witness  in  the  issue  of  “mitigation”.    In   addition  the  motion  requested  that  the  “resentencing”  be  conducted   before  a  jury  and  that,  the  potential  range  be  that  of  a  traditional  first   degree  felony    (Five  years  to  Life)1.    (C.R.167  thru  170)    On  the  date  the   1 Prior to the onset of the trial the appellant had caused to be file a written Election of Punishment wherein he notified that he desired that a jury assess his punishment in the 7 case  was  called  for  the  “resentencing”,  that  motion  was  presented  to  the   trial  Court.    After  hearing  arguments  from  counsel,  the  trial  Court   denied  the  relief  requested  in  the  motion.  (R.R.-­‐9)     The  trial  Court  then  proceeded  with  an  evidentiary  hearing   limited  to  the  single  issue  of  whether  or  not  the  appellant  was   seventeen  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense.    The   appellant  presented  evidence  that  established  that  he  was  seventeen   years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  offense.    The  State  of   Texas  presented  no  evidence  to  contradict  the  appellant’s  evidence  on   that  particular  issue.    The  trial  Court  then  made  a  factual  finding  that  the   appellant  was  seventeen  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of   the  offense.  (R.R.-­‐13)    Thereafter  the  trial  Court  assessed  the  appellant’s   punishment  as  Life  in  the  Texas  Department  of  Criminal  Justice-­‐ Institutional  Division  with  the  possibility  of  parole.  (R.R.-­‐14)    An   amended  judgment  was  entered  to  reflect  the  action  of  the  trial  Court.   (S.C.R.-­‐3,4)                 8   APPELLANT’S  SOLE  POINT   OF  ERROR     THE  TRIAL  COURT  ERRED,  IN  VIOLATION  OF   THE  EIGHTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE   UNITED  STATES  CONSTITUTION,  IN  REFUSING   THE  APPELLANT’S  REQUEST  FOR  A  PUNISHMENT   HEARING  CONSISTENT  WITH  THE  HOLDING  OF  THE   UNITED  STATE  SUPREME  COURT  IN   MILLER  V.  ALABAMA,  ____U.S.____,  132  S.CT.  2455  (2012)                       ARGUMENT  AND  AUTHORITIES          As  has  been  noted  by  both  this  Court  and  the  Court  of  Criminal   Appeals,  the  appellant  has  never  been  accorded  a  sentencing  hearing  of   any  sort  and  has  been  sentenced  initially  to  Life  without  the  possibility   of  parole,  and  thereafter  to  Life.    As  a  consequence,  the  seventeen  year   old  defendant2  has  never  been  accorded  a  sentencing  hearing  which   allowed  him  to  present  meaningful  mitigation  evidence,    the  Eighth   Amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution3,  as  recently  construed  in   the  context  of  defendant’s  under  the  age  of  eighteen  at  the  time  of  the   offense,  mandates  that  offenders  seventeen  years  of  age  or  younger  be   2 At the time of the offense. 3 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 9 accorded  a  sentencing  hearing  that  allows  a  sentence  to  take  into   account  the  background  and  mental  and  emotional  development  of  a   youthful  defendant  be  duly  considered  in    assessing  his  culpability.   Miller  v.  Alabama,  supra,  pg.  2467.  (Citing:  Eddings  v.  Oklahoma,  102  S.Ct.   869  (1987)).    The  Court  explained  the  rationale  behind  its  holding  that   life  without  the  possibility  of  parole  for  youthful  offenders  was   inconsistent  with  the  Eighth  Amendment  in  the  following  terms:                                  Such  mandatory  penalties,  by  their  nature,  preclude                                  a  sentencer  from  taking  account  of  an  offender’s  age                                    and  the  wealth  of  characteristics  and  circumstances                                  attendant  to  it.    Miller  v.  Alabama,  supra  at  2468.                        The  sentencing  protocol  employed  in  the  instant  case  is   fundamentally  indistinguishable  from  that  found  flawed  in  Miller.    Life   in  confinement  is  no  less  a  mandatory  sentence  than  Life  in  confinement   without  the  possibility  of  parole.    Consequently  a  mandatory  sentence  of   life  for  a  youthful  offender,  such  as  that  imposed  herein,  is  violative  of   the  Eighth  Amendment  because  it  is  a  sentence  that  wholly  fails  to  allow   for  the  admission  and  consideration  of  mitigating  factors  attributable  to   the  youth  of  the  offender.    See:  State  v.  Dull,  351  P.2d  641  (Kansas  2015);   State  v.  Lyle,  854  N.W.2d  378  (Iowa  2014);  Bear  Cloud  v.  State,  334  P.3d   132  (Wyoming  2014).   10           PRAYER  FOR  RELIEF     WHEREFORE,  PREMISES  CONSIDERED,  Appellant,  James  Garza,   prays  that  this  Court,  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  trial  Court  and   remand  the  cause  for  purposes  of  a  new  punishment  hearing  and  a   sentence  imposed  by  a  jury.     /s/Edward F. Shaughnessy,III EDWARD  F.  SHAUGHNESSY,  III   206  E.  Locust   San  Antonio,  Texas  78212   (210)  212-­‐6700   (210)  212-­‐2178  (fax)   SBN  18134500   Shaughnessy727@gmail.com   Attorney  for  the  appellant                                         11         CERTIFICATE  OF  SERVICE         I,  Edward  F.  Shaughnessy,  III,  attorney  for  the  appellant  hereby   certify  that  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  the  instant  pleading  was  served   upon  Nico  LaHood,  Criminal  District  Attorney  for  Bexar  County,  401  W.   Nueva,    San  Antonio,  Texas  78205  by  use  of  the  U.S.  Mail  on  this   the__14__  October,  2015.     /s/ Edward F. Shaughnessy,III Edward  F.  Shaughnessy,  III Attorney  for  the  Appellant   CERTIFICATE  OF  COMPLIANCE     I,  Edward  F.  Shaughnessy,  III,  attorney  for  the  appellant,  hereby   certify  that  the  instant  document  contains    1365    words.     //Edward F. Shaughnessy,III Edward  F.  Shaughnessy,  III 12