Viatric A. Hinojosa v. State ( 2008 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00474-CR
Viatric A. HINOJOSA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court, Jim Wells County, Texas
Trial Court No. 39,420
Honorable L. Arnoldo Saenz, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2008
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Appellant Viatric Hinojosa was found guilty by the trial court of enticing a child and
assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the county jail, suspended and probated for a
term of eighteen months. On appeal, Hinojosa argues the trial denied her right to counsel and the
evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. The parties both
concede that the record does not substantiate the trial court’s compliance with the necessary
requirements set forth in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), but differ as to the remedy.
04-07-00474-CR
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Hinojosa’s case was called to trial on April 17, 2007, and Hinojosa represented herself at
the bench trial. After some confusion as to whether Hinojosa’s case was set for trial, Hinojosa
complained that her witness, a police officer with the Alice Police Department, was not present.
The trial court informed Hinojosa that it was too late to begin issuing subpoenas and instructed
the State to present their case. The record does not contain any waivers by Hinojosa or
admonishments given by the trial court.
The State first called Alice Police Officer Tony Aguilar who testified that in October of
2006, he was involved in an incident where a mother was seeking the return of her juvenile
daughter. Another officer, no longer with the Alice Police Department, prepared a report of the
incident. Aguilar was allowed to read the entire report into evidence without objection. The
report indicated that J.V., the child’s mother, did not approve of her daughter, A.Z., hanging
around with Hinojosa and her daughter because the family was “gay lesbian.” Aguilar further
testified that J.V. was asked to provide an affidavit in which she “made it clear . . . that her
daughter was staying someplace else against her wishes.” Shortly before the State passed the
witness, the prosecutor informed the court:
And, Your Honor, if I may interrupt just a moment, we have to basically read the
Information out loud to the Defendant. I’m not sure she is aware, even though it
has been on file with the Court, if you want to take this opportunity to read what
the Information or Complaint was to the Defendant.
The trial court complied; however, Hinojosa was never asked to enter a plea to the charges and
never informed of the possible range of punishment. To the contrary, the State simply asked
Aguilar if the Information alleged the correct penal code violation. During cross-examination by
-2-
04-07-00474-CR
Hinojosa, Aguilar admitted that he never investigated the charges beyond taking J.V.’s
statement.
Willie Ruiz, the assistant principal at Alice High School, testified that, during the 2006-
2007 school year, A.Z. had a total of fifty-two absences and J.V. had expressed concern and
acknowledged that A.Z. was not living at home. J.V. testified that she and A.Z. fought over
whether A.Z. could attend a concert with Hinojosa and her daughter, and shortly thereafter, A.Z.
left home. A.Z. did not come home after the concert, but the following day, A.Z., Hinojosa and
two Alice police officers came to the house to pick up A.Z.’s clothes and personal belongings.
When J.V. complained, the officers told her that there was nothing they could do because A.Z.
was seventeen years old. J.V. subsequently filed a complaint against Hinojosa with the Alice
Police Department complaining that A.Z. was under the age of eighteen and that she had not
given A.Z. permission to stay with Hinojosa. During cross-examination, J.V. acknowledged that
A.Z. was only in Hinojosa’s custody for a period of five days at which point A.Z. moved in with
her godmother and then a different family. Hinojosa was convicted of the offense of enticing a
minor.
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Because legal sufficiency is a dispositive issue requiring acquittal, we first turn to
Hinojosa’s challenge that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction.
A. Standard of Review
In a legal sufficiency review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); McDuff v.
State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The standard of review is the same whether
-3-
04-07-00474-CR
the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both. Kutzner v. State, 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1999).
B. Enticing a Child – Texas Penal Code Section 25.04
A person commits the offense of enticing a child “if, with the intent to interfere with the
lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, he knowingly entices, persuades, or takes the
child from the custody of the parent or guardian or person standing in the stead of the parent or
guardian of such child.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.04 (a) (Vernon 2003). In the absence of
evidence that the defendant intended to commit a felony against the child, the offense is a Class
B Misdemeanor. Id. at § 25.04(b). An individual found guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor shall
be punished by “(1) a fine not to exceed $2,000; (2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed
180 days; or (3) both such fine and confinement.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.22 (Vernon
2003).
C. Analysis
The evidence clearly supports that A.Z. was only seventeen at the time of the incident.
J.V. made it very clear to Hinojosa, the Alice Police Department and anyone who would listen
that she wanted A.Z. returned to her custody. Additionally, because Hinojosa went to J.V.’s
house, accompanied by two police officers, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that she
was taking A.Z. from the custody of J.V., without J.V.’s consent. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 25.04 (a) (Vernon 2003). Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain
the conviction.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Hinojosa asserts in her first two issues on appeal that the record lacks any waiver of her
right to counsel or any admonishments under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
-4-
04-07-00474-CR
Accordingly, Hinojosa argues that this failure of the trial court to properly address her decision
to forego representation by trial counsel violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and abridged her right to due process.
A. Assistance of Counsel
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, as well as Article I,
Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, guarantee a number of rights to the accused in a criminal
proceeding. Not the least of these rights is the right to counsel. U.S. CONST. amend. VI, XIV;
TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 10. See also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 807; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335, 342-44 (1963); Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). An accused,
in any state or federal court, must be afforded the right to the assistance of counsel before she
can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonment. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 807, Argersinger
v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 30-31 (1972) (right to counsel in jailable misdemeanor cases).
Importantly, the right to counsel in misdemeanor cases is not lost merely because the trial court
grants probation after assessing punishment with a period of confinement in jail. Warr v. State,
591 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
The right of an accused to self-representation in her own defense is an independent right
that does not arise from one’s power to waive assistance of counsel. Faretta, 422 U.S. at
819-820. In Johnson v. State, 614 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981), the Court of
Criminal Appeals determined that Faretta requirements are triggered simply by a defendant
appearing without an attorney to contest his guilt. See also Williams v. State, 194 S.W.3d
568, 577 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (holding that “[t]he appearance of a criminal
defendant in court without counsel necessitates an examination by the trial judge to assure the
-5-
04-07-00474-CR
defendant is actually aware of his right to retain an attorney and to discover whether he intends
to do so.”), aff’d, 252 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Once the right to self-representation has been invoked, the trial judge is obligated to
determine, at a minimum, whether the waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, intelligent,
and voluntary. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835. In order to do so, Faretta requires the trial court to
sufficiently admonish a defendant regarding “the dangers and disadvantages of
self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his
choice is made with eyes open.’” Id. A trial judge may “not sit idly by doling out enough legal
rope for defendants to participate in impending courtroom suicide; rather, judges must take an
active role in assessing the defendant’s waiver of counsel.” Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d
578, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). To decide whether a defendant’s waiver is knowing and
intelligent, the court must make an inquiry, evidenced by the record, that shows that the
defendant has sufficient intelligence to demonstrate a capacity to waive his right to counsel and
the ability to appreciate the practical disadvantage he will confront in representing himself.
Goffney v. State, 843 S.W.2d 583, 584-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Geeslin v. State, 600 S.W.2d
309, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
An appellate review indulges every reasonable presumption against the waiver of
counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); Trevino v. State, 555 S.W.2d 750, 751
(Tex. Crim. App. 1977); (holding that “‘courts indulge every reasonable presumption against
waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and that we ‘do not presume acquiescence in the
loss of fundamental rights.’”) (footnote omitted). Moreover, it is the State that bears the heavy
burden to demonstrate an intelligent, voluntary, and knowing waiver of constitutional rights,
-6-
04-07-00474-CR
particularly as applied to the right to retained or appointed counsel. Williams, 194 S.W.3d at
576-77.
B. Analysis
Just as in Williams, Hinojosa appeared on the day of trial without an attorney, triggering
the trial court’s obligation to conduct a comprehensive examination of whether the waiver of
counsel was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Id. at 577. This necessarily included
an understanding of all the circumstances under which her waiver of counsel was tendered. Id. at
578. Absent in the present case is any such inquiry or an admonishment of Hinojosa’s right to
have counsel appointed to defend her if she was unable to hire an attorney on her own. Although
the State suggests that Hinojosa was admonished at her arraignment, the State concedes that the
record does not support a knowing and intelligent waiver.
The record substantiates that the trial court failed to make a preliminary determination of
whether Hinojosa was either indigent or, more specifically, qualified to receive appointed trial
counsel. Id. at 578 n.5. After Hinojosa was convicted and sentenced on April 17, 2007, the
record substantiates that the trial court conducted an indigency hearing, or at least considered
Hinojosa’s affidavit of indigency, and found that Hinojosa was indigent. On May 2, 2007,
attorney Michael Guerra was appointed to represent Hinojosa on her post-trial motions, and on
July 9, 2007, after the hearing on Hinojosa’s motion for new trial, the court appointed appellate
counsel. As the Williams’ Court observed on similar facts, “[i]t is unlikely appellant’s financial
status had changed significantly in the month since her trial.” Id. Without knowing whether she
was entitled to appointed trial counsel, Hinojosa’s waiver of her right to counsel, if any, could
not have been made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily as required by the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Id.
-7-
04-07-00474-CR
C. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2
Rule 44.2(a) categorizes the review of errors in a criminal case into two general
categories: constitutional errors and non-constitutional errors. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2. With regard
to constitutional errors, if the error is a structural constitutional error, then the error is reversible
without a harm analysis. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a); Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997) (superceded by statute on other grounds). On the other hand, if the error is a
nonstructural, constitutional error, an appellate court must reverse the trial court if it fails to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the judgment. TEX. R. APP. P.
44.2(a). All other errors, defects, irregularities or variances that do not affect the substantial
rights of a defendant are disregarded. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).
As previously determined, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Thus, the error in this case was a constitutional
error requiring a determination of whether the error is subject to harmless error review. TEX. R.
APP. P. 44.2(a). Structural errors are constitutional violations “affecting the framework within
which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991); see also Cain, 947 S.W.2d at 264 (determining that
constitutional errors not subject to harm analysis are limited to “certain federal constitutional
errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural’”). The United States Supreme
Court has determined these fundamental constitutional rights include the right to counsel, the
right to an impartial judge, the right to not have members of the defendant’s race unlawfully
excluded from a grand jury, the right to self-representation at trial, and the right to a public trial.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10; see also Manley v. State, 23 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2000, pet. ref’d) (“A complete denial of counsel falls within this category.”). Because we
-8-
04-07-00474-CR
hold that proceeding to trial without a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel or
the necessary admonishments against self-representation, is a structural, constitutional error, it is
not subject to a harm analysis. 1 TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a). We, therefore, reverse the judgment of
the trial court and remand the cause for a new trial. 2
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
Because the right to counsel attaches for any jailable misdemeanor, Argersinger, 407 U.S. 25 at 30-31, and
Hinojosa was charged with a class B misdemeanor, an offense punishable by confinement for up to 180 days in jail,
whether the trial court determines punishment without confinement is irrelevant. See Warr, 591 S.W.2d at 835.
We, therefore, decline to follow the State’s recommendation to remand this matter for a new punishment hearing.
2
Because our findings with regard to Hinojosa’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel are dispositive of this appeal,
we need not address Hinojosa’s issue related to factual sufficiency. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1 (encouraging concise
opinions addressing only those issues “necessary to final disposition of the appeal”).
-9-