Roel Rodriguez v. State ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00011-CR
ROEL RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F45749
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roel Rodriguez entered an open plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed
punishment at 20 years confinement on each count. We affirm.
Background Facts
Roel and Maricela Rodriguez were married in 1995. They divorced in 2010, but
continued to reside together with their three children. On May 27, 2011 there was an
altercation, and Roel stabbed Maricela with a butcher knife over thirty times. Roel also
produced a handgun during the altercation. Maricela was able to escape to a neighbor’s
house, and she was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
Voluntariness of Plea
Roel Rodriguez argues in his first issue that his plea was involuntary because he
did not fully understand the direct consequences of his plea and that he was not
admonished by the trial court as to his ineligibility for probation if convicted. Prior to
accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the
defendant of the range of the punishment attached to the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO.
ANN. § 26.13 (a) (1). (West Supp. 2013). The trial court may make the admonitions
either orally or in writing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. § 26.13 (d). (West Supp. 2013). If
the court makes the admonitions in writing, it must receive a statement signed by the
defendant and the defendant's attorney that he understands the admonitions and is
aware of the consequences of his plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. § 26.13 (d). (West
Supp. 2013).
A trial court has no duty to admonish a defendant about his eligibility for
community supervision. Ex Parte Williams, 704 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986);
Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st. Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). The
range of punishment that must be included in the required admonishment does not
include community supervision. Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d at 841. However, if a court
volunteers information about community supervision, the information provided must
be accurate. Id. A guilty plea is involuntarily induced if it is shown that: (1) the trial
court volunteered an admonishment that included information on the availability of
Rodriguez v. State Page 2
community supervision, thereby creating an affirmative duty to provide accurate
information on the availability of community supervision; (2) the trial court provided
inaccurate information on the availability of community supervision, thereby leaving
the defendant unaware of the consequences of his plea; and (3) the defendant was
misled or harmed by the inaccurate admonishment. Id.
The trial court admonished Rodriguez in writing on the punishment range for
each count of the charged offenses. The trial court did not admonish Rodriguez about
his eligibility for community supervision. At the hearing on Rodriguez’s plea of guilty,
the attorney for the State informed Rodriguez that he was ineligible for probation from
a jury because he has a previous felony conviction. The State then informed Rodriguez
that he was ineligible for regular probation from the trial court because he was pleading
guilty to an offense with a deadly weapon. Rodriguez indicated that he understood
these consequences. Rodriguez’s attorney further questioned Rodriguez about his
eligibility for probation. Rodriguez testified that his attorney had fully discussed the
consequences of his plea with him concerning eligibility for probation, and understood
those consequences. Both the attorney for the State and Rodriguez’s attorney discussed
the punishment range with Rodriguez. Rodriguez has not shown that his plea was
involuntary or that he was misled about the consequences of his plea. We overrule the
first issue.
Punishment Range
In the second issue, Rodriguez argues that the trial court arbitrarily refused to
consider the entire range of punishment after his plea of guilty. Due process requires a
Rodriguez v. State Page 3
neutral and detached hearing body or officer. Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006). Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court's actions will be
presumed to have been correct. Id.
Rodriguez contends that the trial court had predetermined a sentence based
upon comments made at the plea hearing prior to punishment. The trial court told
Rodriguez to have no contact with the victim. The trial court further explained:
Now some people ask by what I mean by no contact. No cards, no letters,
no phone calls, no texts, no e-mails, no Facebook, no driving by the house
honking the horn. If you’re in McDonald’s and she walks in, you just
leave your Big Mac on the counter and walk out. There’s nothing worth
going to the penitentiary for a hamburger.
Rodriguez contends that the statement indicates the trial court did not consider
deferred adjudication and intended to send him to the penitentiary prior to hearing
punishment evidence.
Rodriguez further contends that the trial court did not consider mitigating
evidence that he presented. Rodriguez called friends and relatives to testify at the
punishment hearing. They stated that Rodriguez was not violent and that he loved his
family. Rodriguez also called a psychologist who testified that he has a low risk of
reoffending with domestic violence with Maricela or another partner.
Maricela testified at the punishment hearing that Rodriguez stabbed her over
thirty times and that she suffers permanent injuries from the assault. Rodriguez
testified at the punishment hearing that Maricela stabbed him first and that he did not
intentionally stab her. Rodriguez claimed that the multiple stab wounds suffered by
Rodriguez v. State Page 4
Maricela were all accidental. Rodriguez admitted to lying about the altercation to make
himself look better. The psychologist testified that Rodriguez’s Personality Assessment
Inventory test was invalid because “he either lied on the test or he believes that he is
this good and doesn’t make every-day errors like the rest of us are willing to admit to.”
The record shows that the trial court heard testimony from several witnesses at
the punishment hearing, including the victim and Rodriguez. There is nothing in the
record to show bias, partiality, or that the trial court did not consider the full range of
punishment. We overrule the second issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 9, 2014
[CR 25 ]
Rodriguez v. State Page 5