ACCEPTED
01-15-00472-CR
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
9/9/2015 9:36:18 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
CASE NO. 01-15-00472-CR
FILED IN
In The Court Of Appeals For The 1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
9/9/2015 9:36:18 PM
First Supreme Judicial District CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
At Houston, Texas
A LFREDO L ARA,
Appellant,
VS.
T HE STATE OF T EXAS,
Appellee.
Cause No. 1414552
th
184 Judicial District Court
Harris County, Texas
LARA’S BRIEF
Respectfully submitted by:
COLIN B. AMANN
KETTERMAN HEDLESTEN & AMANN
1004 PRAIRIE, SUITE 300
HOUSTON, TX 77002
713.652.2003 (Voice)
713.652.2002 (Facsimile)
colin@khalawyers.com
L ARA W AIVES O RAL A RGUMENT
I. IDENTITY O F P ARTIES A ND C OUNSEL
A. Parties
Alfredo Lara, Defendant/Appellant
The State of Texas, Plaintiff
Represented by:
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office
1201 Franklin
Houston, TX 77002
B. Appellate Counsel
Colin B. Amann
Texas Bar 01138100
1004 Prairie, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77002
713-652-2003 (voice)
713-652-2002 (facsimile)
C. Trial Counsel
Farnaz Faiaz
Texas Bar 24063791
Harris County District Attorney’s Office
713-755-5800
Trial Counsel for the State of Texas
Kenneth Junck
Texas Bar 11051000
13410 Hollypark Drive
Houston, TX 77015
713-453-7283
Trial Counsel for Lara
-i-
II. T ABLE O F C ONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel......................................................................................i
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................ii
Index of Authorities....................................................................................................iii
Statement of the Case...................................................................................................1
Statement Regarding Oral Argument............................................................................2
Issues Presented...........................................................................................................2
1. Lara filed and presented a motion for new trial alleging that his
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating
evidence at Lara’s sentencing. The district court scheduled Lara’s motion
for a hearing. But because of a clerical error, it was set after the 75-day
deadline had passed. So Lara’s motion was overruled as a matter of law.
Should this appeal be abated so that the trial court can conduct the
hearing?
2. Is Lara entitled to a hearing on his motion for new trial, which
alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to investigate
and present mitigating evidence at Lara’s sentencing?
Summary of the Argument.........................................................................................2
Statement of Facts........................................................................................................3
Arguments...................................................................................................................9
Prayer........................................................................................................................19
Certificate of Service..................................................................................................21
Certificate of Compliance...........................................................................................22
-ii-
III. INDEX O F A UTHORITIES
Cases:
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)..................................................................10
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)...............................................................11
Hemphill v. State, 2015 WL 1456338 (Tex. App. – Houston [14 th Dist.]
March 26, 2015)(not designated for publication)....................................................20
Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)..........................16, 17, 18
Lopez v. State, 462 S.W.3d 180
(Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2015..........................................................13, 14, 15
McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)................................10
McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)....................................16
Milburn v. State, 15 S.W.3d 267
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000)................................................13, 15, 17, 19
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).....................................................................12
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)...............................................................9, 12
Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)..................................16, 17
Rivera v. State, 123 S.W.3d 21
(Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d)....................................................13
Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668 (1984)....................................10, 11, 12, 14
Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).......................................10
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984).........................................................11
-iii-
Vela v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1053 (1984)....13
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).................................................................13
Constitutions:
U.S. C ONST. amend. VI..............................................................................................9
Statutes:
T EX. P ENAL C ODE A NN. §22.04(a)(1)(Vernon’s 2014).............................................1
Rules:
T EX. R. A PP. P. 21.4(a)........................................................................................1, 4
T EX. R. A PP. P. 4.1(a)..........................................................................................1, 4
T EX. R. A PP. P. 21.8(c)..............................................................................................1
T EX. R. A PP. P. 21.8(a)..............................................................................................5
T EX. R. A PP. P. 21.6...................................................................................................5
-iv-
IV. STATEMENT O F T HE C ASE
The appellant, Alfredo Lara, was charged by indictment with causing serious
bodily injury to a child.1 On September 16, 2014, Lara pleaded guilty and the case was
reset so that a presentence investigation report could be prepared.2
On October 29, 2014, after conducting a hearing, Lara was found guilty and the
trial court assessed punishment at forty years’ confinement in the State penitentiary.3
On December 1, 2014, Lara filed a motion for new trial.4 This motion was timely
presented to the trial court by December 11, 2015.5
Lara’s motion for new trial was set for a hearing, but the hearing date – January
20, 2015 – was inadvertently scheduled in excess of 75 days from the motion’s filing.6
Lara’s motion was therefore overruled, as a matter of law, on January 12, 2015.7
Lara timely filed his notice of appeal on January 26, 2015.8
1
/ C.R. I at 13. See TEX . PENAL CODE §22.04(a)(1).
2
/ C.R. I at 19, 32.
3
/ C.R. I at 34.
4
/ C.R. I at 37. See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.4(a) & 4.1(a).
5
/ C.R. I at 45, 51. See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.6.
6
/ C.R. I at 45, 49.
7
/ See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.8(c)
8
/ C.R. I at 53.
-1-
V. STATEMENT R EGARDING O RAL A RGUMENT
Lara waives oral argument, but will gladly appear before this Honorable Court
if requested to do so.
VI. ISSUES P RESENTED
1. Lara filed and presented a motion for new trial alleging that his counsel
was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at Lara’s
sentencing. The district court scheduled Lara’s motion for a hearing. But because of
a clerical error, it was set after the 75-day deadline had passed. So Lara’s motion was
overruled as a matter of law. Should this appeal be abated so that the trial court can
conduct the hearing?
2. Is Lara entitled to a hearing on his motion for new trial, which alleges
ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to investigate and present mitigating
evidence at Lara’s sentencing?
VII. SUMMARY O F T HE A RGUMENT
It is well settled that trial counsel has a professional duty to investigate his
client’s background, and to present mitigating evidence at a sentencing hearing. If he
fails to do so, and the defendant is prejudiced by this failure, then counsel is ineffective
and the defendant is entitled to a new punishment hearing.
-2-
Here, Lara filed and presented a motion for new trial alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel. This motion, and its accompanying affidavit, provided
reasonable grounds to believe that his counsel did not properly investigate his
background, and failed to produce crucial mitigating evidence at the punishment
hearing. The district court in fact set this matter for a hearing, but due to a clerical
error, the hearing was scheduled for a date that was eight days past the 75-day deadline
for the court to rule. Lara’s new trial motion was therefore overruled as a matter of law.
Lara’s motion for new trial makes clear that he was entitled to a hearing. So this
Court should either: 1) abate the appeal and remand this case to the trial court so that
it can conduct the hearing that it intended to hold; or 2) set aside Lara’s punishment
and remand this case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
VIII. STATEMENT O F F ACTS
A. Procedural Background
On October 29, 2014, after conducting a sentencing hearing in conjunction with
a presentence investigation report, Lara was found guilty of causing seriously bodily
injury to a child. The court assessed his punishment at forty years’ confinement in the
State penitentiary.9
9
/ C.R. I at 34.
-3-
On December 1, 2014, Lara filed a motion for new trial alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel.10 This motion was supported by Lara’s affidavit, which
highlighted – among other things – defense counsel’s lack of investigation and
deficient performance at the punishment hearing:
! My lawyer never reviewed any of my child’s medical records with
me;
! I was not advised that I could hire a medical expert to review those
medical records so that my child’s prognosis could be established;
! Even though there was an extensive CPS investigation, my lawyer
never reviewed any of the CPS records with me, and as far as I
know, he never obtained the CPS records so that he could review
them;
! During the PSI hearing, my lawyer never informed the Court that
I had attended, and successfully completed: (1) a sixteen-week
anger management class; and (2) a ten-week parenting course. I
also underwent an extensive psychological evaluation, the results
of which were never presented to the Court. None of my numerous
drug and alcohol tests, all of which were negative, were offered
into evidence.11
Lara’s motion requested a hearing, and accurately stated that the hearing should
be held no later than January 12, 2015, which was 75 days from the date that sentence
10
/ C.R. I at 37. See TEX . R. APP. P. 21.4(a) & 4.1(a).
11
/ C.R. I at 42.
-4-
was imposed in open court.12 And, finally, the motion for new trial was timely
presented to the district court by December 11, 2015.13
So all of the necessary steps were taken to ensure that Lara received a hearing
on his motion. But the hearing date was scheduled for January 20, 2015, which was
eight days past the 75-day deadline.14 What apparently happened is that the numbers
of the January 12 date (recited in the motion) were transposed and read as January 21,
instead. The hearing was hence set for January 20, which would have been within the
mistaken deadline of January 21.15
It is nevertheless apparent that the court intended to hear Lara’s motion for new
trial, as evidenced by it being set on the court’s docket. The motion was, unfortunately,
overruled as a matter of law because of what amounts to a clerical error that went
unnoticed.
B. The Punishment Hearing
At the punishment hearing, the State presented the child’s mother, Amanda
Hurt, as its only witness.
12
/ C.R. I at 39. See TEX . R. APP. P. 21.8(a).
13
/ C.R. I at 45, 51. See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.6.
14
/ C.R. I at 45.
15
/ C.R. I at 49.
-5-
Ms. Hurt testified that the injured child, who is Lara’s son, was six-months old
when the incident occurred.16 Lara at first maintained that the child had suffered his
injuries as a result of rolling off of the bed.17 But Ms. Hurt later learned that Lara had
admitted to throwing the child into a car seat four or five times.18
The child was in hospital for more than three weeks recovering from his
injuries.19 Children’s Protective Services (CPS) took custody of the child after he was
released from the hospital. He was returned to his mother six weeks later.20
The child, who was almost three-years old at the time of the sentencing hearing,
has to be taken to the doctor every six months because he has a shunt in his head. He
also speech and physical therapy once a week.21 Three strokes that he had while in
hospital caused paralysis to part of his left side, and efforts were being made to help
him walk better. He is four or five months behind with his learning.22
Notwithstanding the extent of her son’s injuries, Ms. Hurt asked the court to
16
/ R.R. II at 11.
17
/ R.R. II at 23.
18
/ R.R. II at 24.
19
/ R.R. II at 23.
20
/ R.R. II at 23-24.
21
/ R.R. II at 24-26.
22
/ R.R. II at 34.
-6-
place Lara on probation. She did not want him to go to prison. Lara pays child support,
which allows her to have her son in daycare while she goes to work.23 She asked the
court to place Lara on deferred adjudication, and prohibit him from ever seeing his son
again.24
Lara testified that he grew frustrated when he could not stop his son’s crying.
He eventually threw him in a car seat, which was sitting on the living room floor, four
or five times.25 He immediately realized that his son was hurt and rushed him to the
hospital.26 But he never told the doctors what really happened to his son.27 Eight
months after the incident, he finally admitted what he had done.28
A week or so before this incident – while in Lara’s care – the child fell out of
the bed and injured his head.29 Lara did not tell anyone about that incident, either.30
23
/ R.R. II at 28.
24
/ R.R. II at 29-30, 47-49.
25
/ R.R. II at 39-40, 46.
26
/ R.R. II at 40, 50.
27
/ R.R. II at 52.
28
/ R.R. II at 53.
29
/ R.R. II at 54.
30
/ R.R. II at 54.
-7-
And Lara never told CPS what he had done to his son.31
Lara understands that he will have to pay child support and provide insurance
for his son.32 Lara feels terrible about what he did to his child, and stated that he would
never do anything like that again.33
Lara has never been convicted of a felony.34 But in July 2011, he was placed on
a one-year probation for assaulting his daughter.35 She was 17- or 18-years old at the
time, and had come home drunk one night shortly after Lara’s wife had passed away.36
The two started arguing and he slapped her.37
At the conclusion of the hearing, Lara’s counsel merely suggested that based on
what the mom wanted, and in the best interests of the child, Lara should continue to
pay child support, provide insurance, and see to the child’s financial needs.38 He never
specifically asked the court for probation.
31
/ R.R. II at 55.
32
/ R.R. II at 42.
33
/ R.R. II at 43-44.
34
/ R.R. II at 43.
35
/ R.R. II at 59-60.
36
/ R.R. II at 60-61.
37
/ R.R. II at 61.
38
/ R.R. II at 69.
-8-
The prosecutor recounted the mother’s teary-eyed plea for deferred
adjudication.39 And then, after balancing her wishes, the child’s best interests, and the
facts of the case, recommended a five-year prison sentence.40
The court sentenced Lara to 40 years in prison.41
IX. A RGUMENTS
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Since Lara claims that his lawyer was ineffective, it will be useful to examine
the basic principles concerning: 1) a lawyer’s duties in providing effective assistance;
and 2) the legal standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defense.”42 Since the Supreme Court decision in Powell v. Alabama,
this Constitutional mandate has been interpreted to guarantee an accused “effective
assistance” of counsel.43 Fundamental to the right of counsel is the recognition that the
39
/ R.R. II at 71.
40
/ R.R. II at 72.
41
/ R.R. II at 73.
42
/ U.S. CONST . amend. VI.
43
/ Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
-9-
effective assistance of an attorney is essential to assure a fair trial.44 “Unless a
defendant charged with a serious offense has counsel able to invoke the procedural and
substantive safeguards that distinguish our system of justice, a serious risk of injustice
infects the trial itself.” 45
In Strickland v. Washington,46 the United States Supreme Court established a
two-part test for determining whether an attorney’s assistance is so ineffective as to
require the reversal of a conviction. It must first be shown that counsel’s performance
was deficient — counsel’s performance must have fallen below an objective standard
of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.47 If this requirement is satisfied,
it must next be established that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.48
Prejudice occurs when there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.49 A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
44
/ Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
45
/ Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 343 (1980).
46
/ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
47
/ McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
48
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
49
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
-10-
outcome.50 It need not be shown, however, that counsel’s substandard conduct more
likely than not altered the outcome of the case.51
Under Strickland, an attorney has a professional duty to present all available
evidence and arguments to support the defense of his client. As the Supreme Court
noted in Gagnon v. Scarpelli,52 the attorney who represents a criminal defendant is
“bound by professional duty to present all available evidence and arguments in support
of [the client’s] positions and to contest with vigor all adverse evidence and views.”
The proper function of the adversarial testing process would be undermined and
judicial proceedings could not be relied upon as having produced just results if this
were otherwise. Absent competent counsel, ready and able to subject the prosecution’s
case to the “crucible of meaningful adversarial testing,” there can be no guarantee that
the adversarial system will function properly to produce just and reliable results.53
Strickland makes clear that the right to effective assistance of counsel is explicitly tied
to the defendant’s right to a fundamentally fair trial — a trial in which the
50
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
51
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
52
/ Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 787 (1973).
53
/ United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 (1984).
-11-
determination of guilt or innocence is “just” and “reliable.” 54
The right to effective assistance of counsel is therefore recognized not for its
own sake, but because of the effect it has on the ability of the accused to receive a fair
trial. The Sixth Amendment embodies this guarantee “because it envisions counsel’s
playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just
results.”55 A criminal defendant who obtains relief under Strickland does not receive
a windfall; on the contrary, reversal of a defendant’s conviction is necessary to ensure
a fair and just result. To hold differently would be, in the words of Justice Sutherland,
“to ignore the fundamental postulate . . . that there are certain immutable principles of
justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the
Union may disregard.”56 These principles of effective assistance apply with equal force
to guilt/innocence proceedings, and punishment determinations.
“The sentencing stage of any case, regardless of the potential punishment, is ‘the
time at which for many defendants the most important services of the entire proceeding
54
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 685-86, 696. See also Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 175
(1986)(under Strickland, the “bench mark” of the right to counsel is the “fairness of the
adversary proceeding”).
55
/ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 685.
56
/ Powell, 287 U.S. at 71.
-12-
can be performed.’”57 For example, in a recent decision from this Court, Lopez v. State,
the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery without a recommended sentence
and, following a presentence investigation, was sentenced to 30 years in prison.58 The
defendant filed a motion for new trial claiming that counsel was ineffective because
he failed to investigate the defendant’s background and present mitigating evidence at
the sentencing hearing.59 The trial court denied the motion and the ensuing appeal
focused on counsel’s obligations at punishment hearings.
With respect to Strickland’s first prong, this Court observed that the defendant’s
counsel had a “professional obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation into his
client’s background and to evaluate whether the information discovered would be
helpful in mitigating against the State’s evidence on punishment.” 60 And of course
counsel could not justify the failure to present mitigating circumstances as a tactical
decision when he had not conducted this investigation into the defendant’s
background.61
57
/ Milburn v. State, 15 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000), quoting Vela
v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954, 964 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1053 (1984).
58
/ Lopez v. State, 462 S.W.3d 180, 182 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2015).
59
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 182, 186.
60
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 187; citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000); Rivera v.
State, 123 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d).
61
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 186.
-13-
Under Strickland’s second prong, the Court focused on whether there was a
“reasonable probability that the assessment of punishment would have been less severe
in the absence of defense counsel’s deficient performance.”62 In other words, was the
result of the particular proceeding “‘unreliable because of a breakdown in the
adversarial process that our system counts on to produce just results.’”63
In evaluating if such a collapse had occurred, the Court observed that in the
sentencing process, punishment questions are determined by weighing the relative
merits of both mitigating and aggravating factors, and then making reasoned
adjustments in the severity of the sentence.64 The adversarial process is hindered if the
factfinder is not provided with favorable evidence, and is left to consider only the
aggravating factors.65 The Court concluded that prejudice exists if defense counsel’s
failure to investigate results in no mitigating evidence being presented to offset the
aggravating ingredients.66 In such instances, “there is not even a possibility of the
factfinder considering mitigating evidence.” 67
62
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 188.
63
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 188, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.
64
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 188.
65
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 188.
66
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 189.
67
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 189. (Emphasis added).
-14-
Since defense counsel neither investigated nor presented any punishment
evidence for the trial court to consider, Lopez was deprived “of even the possibility of
developing a mitigating defense.”68 The Court thus held that the trial court erred in
denying the motion for new trial, and the case was remanded for a new punishment
hearing.69
In similar fashion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a
matter for a new punishment hearing where defense counsel presented no mitigation
evidence on his client’s behalf.70 In Milburn, the Court concluded that “even though
it is sheer speculation that character witnesses in mitigation would have in fact
favorably influenced the [trial court’s] assessment of punishment,” a defendant is
nonetheless prejudiced when counsel’s lack of effort at a punishment hearing precludes
the possibility of bringing out even a single mitigating factor.71 This is especially true
when the potential punishment is life imprisonment.72
It is apparent from this discussion that trial counsel bears the burden of
68
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 189.
69
/ Lopez, 462 S.W.3d at 190.
70
/ Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 271-72.
71
/ Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 271.
72
/ Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 269.
-15-
searching for the existence of any favorable evidence that might be presented in
mitigation of his client’s punishment. And a new-trial hearing is warranted if there is
any credible reason to think that he failed in his task. This is indeed the only way to
ensure that the defendant received a full, balanced, and fair punishment decision.
B. Lara was Entitled to a Hearing on his Motion for New Trial
When the grounds for granting a new trial are outside the record, a motion for
new trial must be substantiated by someone with knowledge of the pertinent facts.73 As
a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing – and as a matter of pleading – the motion must
be supported by an affidavit of either the accused, or someone else, specifically
showing the truth of the grounds asserted.74 This does not mean that the affidavit must
“reflect every component legally required to establish relief . . . .”75 The motion and the
accompanying affidavit must merely indicate “that reasonable grounds exist for
holding that such relief could be granted.”76 In other words, a defendant does not have
to establish a prima facie case for the grounds raised in his motion for new trial.77 It
73
/ Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
74
/ Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
75
/ Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
76
/ Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
77
/ McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
-16-
is enough that he assert reasonable grounds for relief that are not determinable from the
record. And if his motion and affidavit do that, an evidentiary hearing on the motion
is mandatory.78 The purpose of the hearing is, of course, to then fully develop the issues
raised in the motion for new trial.79
In the instant case, Lara’s potential punishment was life in prison. The
sentencing hearing was therefore vitally important.80 Lara’s motion for new trial
claiming ineffective assistance of counsel was supported by his affidavit, which
detailed defense counsel’s lack of investigation and deficient performance at this most
critical punishment hearing:
! My lawyer never reviewed any of my child’s medical records with
me;
! I was not advised that I could hire a medical expert to review those
medical records so that my child’s prognosis could be established;
! Even though there was an extensive CPS investigation, my lawyer
never reviewed any of the CPS records with me, and as far as I
know, he never obtained the CPS records so that he could review
them;
! During the PSI hearing, my lawyer never informed the Court that
I had attended, and successfully completed: (1) a sixteen-week
78
/ Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816.
79
/ Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
80
/ Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 269.
-17-
anger management class; and (2) a ten-week parenting course. I
also underwent an extensive psychological evaluation, the results
of which were never presented to the Court. None of my numerous
drug and alcohol tests, all of which were negative, were offered
into evidence.81
These allegations demonstrate that reasonable grounds exist for holding that Lara
would be entitled to relief on his ineffective-assistance claim.82 Much like the situations
in Lopez and Milburn, Lara’s counsel failed to investigate and present mitigation
evidence at the sentencing hearing.
It is a fair assumption that counsel did not examine anything from the CPS case.
Either that case was closed without Lara’s parental rights being terminated, which
would certainly be favorable evidence, or his rights were terminated; a fact that
probably would not have escaped the prosecutor’s attention — especially since CPS
took custody of the child after he was released from the hospital, and did not return
him to his mother until six weeks later.83
And it would have been quite important for the sentencing court to hear that
Lara 1) completed a sixteen-week anger management class, 2) finished a ten-week
parenting course, 3) underwent an extensive psychological evaluation, and 4) passed
81
/ C.R. I at 42.
82
/ See Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
83
/ R.R. II at 23-24.
-18-
numerous drug and alcohol tests. This evidence shows that Lara had a significant head-
start on the rehabilitative process, which made him a better candidate for probation
because he posed less of a future threat to others. At the very least, such efforts might
have warranted the consideration of something less than a 40-year prison sentence.
The destructiveness caused by the absence of this mitigating proof is perhaps
best evidenced by the court’s 40-year sentence, which far exceeded the five years
recommended by the State.84 There exists a very real probability that Lara’s sentence
would have been less severe had the court been provided with mitigating circumstances
to offset the aggravating factors.85
So Lara’s motion for new trial and accompanying affidavit entitled him to a
hearing. That much seems certain. Even the trial court set this matter for a hearing.86
And but for an unfortunate error in the scheduling, that hearing would have taken
place.
X. P RAYER
Lara requests that his appeal be abated and that this case be remanded to the trial
court to conduct a hearing on Lara’s motion for new trial regarding his contention that
84
/ See Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 270.
85
/ See Milburn, 15 S.W.3d at 271.
86
/ C.R. I at 45.
-19-
he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing.87
Alternatively, Lara requests that his punishment be set aside and that this case
be remanded for a new trial on punishment.
Respectfully submitted,
K ETTERMAN H EDLESTEN & A MANN, PLLC
By: /s/ Colin B. Amann
COLIN B. AMANN
State Bar No. 01138100
1004 Prairie, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 652-2003
(713) 652-2002 (Facsimile)
colin@khalawyers.com
87
/ See Hemphill v. State, 2015 WL 1456338 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] March 26,
2015)(not designated for publication).
-20-
C ERTIFICATE O F SERVICE
A copy of Lara’s Brief was delivered to the following party(ies) by the means
indicated on 9 September 2015:
E-Mail Delivery:
curry_alan@dao.hctx.net
Appellate Division
Harris County District Attorney
Houston, Texas
/s/ Colin B. Amann
COLIN B. AMANN
-21-