Elizondo, Jose Guadalupe Rodriguez ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •          FILED IN
    PD-.1039-14
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    March 12,2015                                                       Transmitted 3/11/2015 3:54:30 PM
    Accepted 3/12/2015 9:11:00 AM
    ABEL ACOSTA. CLERK                                                                         ABEL ACOSTA
    NO. PD-1039-14                                             CLERK
    ncte-    2014 WL 222834
    , at *9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 16,
    2014, pet. granted).
    The undersigned counsel prepared motions for rehearing and for
    reconsideration en banc, but did not notice this error in the Thirteenth Court
    of Appeals' opinion. The undersigned counsel likewise did not recognize
    the error when preparing Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review. As
    a result, the Petition states: "Defense counsel did object to this error, but
    again, while the court of appeals agreed that the instruction was erroneous,
    the court found no harm. Elizondo, 
    2014 WL 222834
    , at *9."                The
    undersigned counsel, relying on the court of appeals opinion and not
    recognizing the error, inadvertently carried the error forward into the petition
    for discretionary review.
    It was not until preparing the brief on the merits that the undersigned
    counsel recognized that the court of appeals erred in determining that this
    particular charge error was preserved by objection in the district court. As a
    result, the error was repeated in the petition for discretionary review.
    While preservation of the error changes the degree of harm that must
    be shown from the erroneous jury charge, the factors for analyzing that harm
    are the same.1 And, "[njeither party bears the burden on appeal to prove
    harm or harmlessness."2 Despite the error, the argument Appellant raises
    will be essentially the same: whether under a standard of "some harm" or
    "egregious harm," the court of appeals wholly failed to consider the
    Almanza factors.          See Petition for Discretionary Review at 14 ("In
    addressing these two charge errors, while paying lip service to the applicable
    1 Villarrealv. State, No. PD-0332-13, 
    2015 WL 458146
    , at *3 (Tex. Crim. App.
    Feb. 4, 2015) (analyzing Almanza factors when reviewing for egregious harm); Vogel v.
    State, No. PD-0873-13, 
    2014 WL 5394605
    , at *4 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2014)
    (analyzing Almanza factors when reviewing -for "some harm"); Reeves v. State, 
    420 S.W.3d 812
    , 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (same); Bailey v. State, 
    867 S.W.2d 42
    , 43
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ("Rather, every charge error must be assessed in light of 'the
    entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of
    probative evidence, the arguments of counsel and any other relevant information revealed
    by the record of the trial as a whole.'").
    2 Vogel, 
    2014 WL 5394605
    , at *4.
    standard of review, the court of appeals did not engage in any analysis at
    all.").
    However, the undersigned counsel believes that to comply with her
    duty of candor to this Honorable tribunal, the error must be corrected in her
    petition for discretionary review. The undersigned profusely apologizes for
    the oversight. The undersigned counsel will address the proper standard of
    review in Appellant's brief on the merits.
    For all the foregoing reasons, Appellant's undersigned counsel
    respectfully apologizes for the error in Appellant's petition for discretionary
    review and requests leave to amend the petition. A copy of the amended
    petition is being filed concurrently with this motion.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /s/ Brandy Wingate Voss
    Brandy Wingate Voss
    State Bar No. 24037046
    Smith Law Group, P.C.
    820 E. Hackberry Ave.
    McAllen, TX 78501
    (956) 683-6330
    (956) 225-0406 (fax)
    brandy@appealsplus.com
    Counselfor Appellant
    CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
    I certify that on March 11, 2015,1 conferred with John Messinger and
    Michael Morris, counsel for Appellee the State of Texas, who informed me
    that the Appellee does not oppose the relief requested in this motion.
    /s/ Brandy Wingate Voss
    Brandy Wingate Voss
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that on March 11, 2015, in compliance with Texas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 9.5,1 served this document on the following counsel of
    record by electronic mail and/or by facsimile:
    Lisa C. McMinn
    John R. Messinger
    State Prosecuting Attorneys
    Office of State Prosecuting Attorney of Texas
    P. O. Box 13046
    Austin, Texas 78711-3046
    Fax:(512)463-5724
    Ted Hake
    Michael Morris
    Assistant District Attorney
    Appeals Section
    Office of Criminal District Attorney
    Hidalgo County, Texas
    100 N. Closner, Rm 303
    Edinburg, Texas 78539
    Fax: (956) 380-0407
    ted.hake@da.co.hidalgo.tx.us
    michael.moms@da.co.hidalgo.tx.us
    /s/ Brandy Wingate Voss
    Brandy Wingate Voss
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PD-1039-14

Filed Date: 3/17/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016