"DU: RINO vs DINO"
7 Comments -

Show Original Post

Collapse comments


Jaime Kenedeño said...
Jaime Kenedeño said... Very thorough article.A must read for all in South Texas.Hinojosa has done some crooked sh/t if this all checks out and I think it will with the 13thCOA links and all.I need to check out the opinions but it looks like Rose is going to take on King Kong. But King Kong has handicapped himself.
1:41 AM

Jaime Kenedeño said...
One to Federico Hinojosa's credit and non corporate stanceCOURT OF APPEALSTHIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXASCORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG--------------------------------------------------------------------------------@#!$## *()^%$, Appellant,v.THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------OPINIONBefore Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Baird Former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Courtby the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to the government code. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon Supp. 2004).Close Opinion Per CuriamAppellant was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record. A jury convicted appellant of a lesser included offense and assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). We abate this appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for futher proceedings consistent with this opinion.I. Procedural History.Appellant raises two points of error, both of which deal with the status of her legal representation in the thirty days following sentencing. Specifically, the first point of error contends she was abandoned by trial counsel. The second point contends the trial judge erred in not appointing counsel to represent appellant during the thirty-day time period for filing a motion for new trial. A brief procedural history is necessary to put the points in context.On December 4, 2001, the jury returned its punishment verdict and the trial judge placed appellant on community supervision. On December 21, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant wrote a letter to the judge seeking appointment of counsel on appeal and a free reporter’s record. On January 10, 2002, the trial judge entered an order finding appellant indigent, and appointed counsel to prosecute appellant’s appeal. What is clear to us from the reading of the affidavits involved in this appeal is the following:1.trial counsel discussed with appellant her right to appeal; Trial counsel states that he explained to appellant her right to file a motion for newtrial and her right to appeal. Appellant disputes that statement, saying trial counsel neverinformed her of the right to file a motion for new trial, specifically, that counsel never relatedto her the importance of raising claims of jury misconduct and ineffective assistance ofcounsel, and filing the motion within 30 days. It is, however, undisputed that no motionwas filed. It is also undisputed that a record supporting such claims must be made at amotion for new trial hearing. Tex. R. App. P. 21.2 (motion for new trial is required whennecessary to adduce facts not in the record); see Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771-72(Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (motion for new trial required to rebut presumption trial counsel'sconduct was not based upon strategic or tactical decision); Davis v. State, 419 S.W.2d 648,650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (evidence must be offered in support of the motion for new trialalleging jury misconduct).Close 2.trial counsel told appellant that he “represented her only for her trial, [and not] on her appeal;”3.appellant wanted to appeal;4.trial counsel prepared a pro se notice of appeal for appellant and instructed her to file the notice and request appointed counsel;5.trial counsel did not pursue a motion for new trial;6.appellant filed the notice of appeal and requested appointed counsel, “[believing] she was doing everything necessary to protect [her] rights of appeal;” 7. appellant did not file a pro se motion for new trial; and8. appointed counsel would have filed a motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.This case presents a comedy of errors. First, trial counsel believed he did not represent appellant during the critical time period for the filing of a motion for new trial. This belief was erroneous because counsel had the duty to continue his representation of the defendant until other counsel was secured to prosecute the appeal. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In Axel, the court of criminal appeals held that, until permitted to withdraw, trialcounsel, whether retained or appointed, has the duty, obligation, and responsibility to consultwith and fully advise the client concerning the meaning and effect of a judgment rendered bya court, the duty to consult with and fully advise the client of the right to appeal from thatjudgment, the necessity of giving notice of appeal, taking other steps to pursue an appeal,as well as expressing his professional judgment as to possible grounds for appeal and theirmerit, and delineating the advantages and disadvantages of appeal. See Ex parte Axel, 757S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Close This mistaken belief caused appellant to be abandoned during this critical stage of the proceedings.Second, even though appellant filed her notice of appeal and request for the appointment of counsel within the thirty-day time period, counsel was not appointed until after the motion for new trial time limit had expired. Therefore, appointed appellate counsel was unable to file the motion for new trial both she and appellant desired. Finally, appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that she is now employed by the District Attorney’s office. Appellant’s appellate counsel has recently furnished this Court with the trial court’s order granting her motion to withdraw. In light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, we believe the proper remedy is to abate the appeal and remand the cause to recommence the time period for filing a new trial motion. See Radcliff v. State, No. 01-02-00419-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5365, *4 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] June 26, 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication); Garcia v. State, 97 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, no pet.); Prudhomme v. State, 28 S.W.3d 114, 121 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2000, no pet.); Massingill v. State, 8 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Tex. App.–Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). We do so without disturbing the trial court’s judgment and without relying on rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (governing the suspension of the appellate rules). On remand, the appellate timetables are to begin anew, starting from the date this order issues. Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; see Tex. R. App. P. 43.6. Further, upon remand the trial court shall appoint new counsel. New counsel shall then consult with appellant and determine whether she desires to file a motion for new trial. If no motion for new trial is filed, we will presume that option was considered by appellant and rejected. Smith v. State, 17 S.W.3d 660, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If appellant elects to file a motion for new trial, and the trial judge grants that motion, the appellate record shall be supplemented with that order, and appellant's appeal will be dismissed. If the trial judge overrules the new trial motion, the record shall be supplemented with that order and the record of any hearing held on such motion, and the parties will be permitted to brief any issues related to the overruled motion. The appeal will be limited to the issues related to the motion for new trial because thebrief raises only the points of error recounted above, and does not raise any error that mighthave otherwise been raised from the appellate record currently before us.Close Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; Massingill, 8 S.W.3d at 738-39.Accordingly, this appeal is abated and remanded for further proceedings as directed herein.IT IS SO ORDERED.PER CURIAM
2:00 AM

Jaime Kenedeño said...
Hey Vincente Yall guys dont forget to listen to reading of Court Documents involving MIKAL WATTS' own Judge / "Politiquera" Marisela Saldana and the facts (the english version) on 1440 AM KEYS RADIO 7-9 AM The BOB JONES SHOW.
3:43 AM
Relampago said...
I have not heard back from my lawyer friend; he must be in trial. I wonder if any of the cases mentioned in the Democrat Underground are the one where Hinojosa tried to cheat Fil Vela.
10:08 AM
GulfCoastLeftie said...
I don't really believe that Tokyo Rose had to switch parties in order to beat Hinojosa--Fil comes from a highly respected political family in the Valley. I sincerely believe she would stand a better chance beating Hinojosa in the primary as a Democrat than as a Republican in November. Also, Rose has outraged the people who worked so hard to get her on the ballot originally--when Judge Tagle was appointed, she left a vacancy after the primary, so the county executive committee (the precinct chairs) were the ones who made the final decision of whose name went on the ballot--and it was a vicious fight. No secret ballots--it was a standing vote, and we could see people writing down our names. Wild chisme, but I understand that Rose and Fil didn't even tell their relatives in the Valley before the switch, and some of Fil's own family members are furious about that. I've got a call in to a friend who's politically active in the Valley, and I hope to have some more info in a day or so--but it sounds like some enemies have been made there, too. For all the above reasons, I can't see another logical scenario except the 13th Court being split or a Federal Judgeship coming open, with Rose angling for an appointment. I'll NEVER vote for Tokyo Rose, simply because I was one of those precinct chairs who went out on a limb for her. Then I read the article in the paper which makes it sound like she was lying to me back then, just a matter of convenience for her. Well, it was a rather large inconvenience for me, and I don't appreciate it. Not one bit. DINO over RINO, especially in this case.
5:30 PM
Relampago said...
The chisme about a federal judicial appointment cannot be true. First, to get in line for such an appointment, one would have to kiss up to our Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson. That's not who Fil and Rose hang with. Second, there are a million "true" Republicans in line way ahead of Rose and nothing the Velas could do would bring Rose to the top (or even the first page) of that list. A $10,000 junket to the Far East might be enough to buy some politicians, but it will not buy a judicial appointment from our two Senators (who are for sale, but not at that price). If there is the hope of an appointment at the heart of this betreyal, it must be the hope for a non-judicial appointment or an appointment to the soon-to-be-split Court of Appeals (this is a most interesting theory).But maybe it is not a question of appointments. Maybe the Velas think Rose can win outright. It is not too far fetched. Just think back to the 52%-48% squeeker of an election between well-loved Democrat Linda Yanez versus what's-her-name and why-isn't-she-campaigning? Republican Alicia Cuellar. Surely, Linda Yanez is at least 5% better loved than barely-tolerated DINO Hinojosa. And surely -- apart from Democratic party regulars like you and me -- most moderate voters will find Vela's campaign more appealing than Cuellar's non-campaign. If the Yanez-Cuellar election is reborn, the difference in the candidates this time around could make the difference in the outcome.Finally, as Texans for Public Justice and Democratic Underground show, Hinojosa is very generous in his judicial rulings to those who give him political contributions. Plus he has a natural demographic edge being based in the Valley versus Corpus Christi. Plus he's the incumbent. It is not hard for me to believe that a general election would minimize Hinojosa's tripple advantages of big-money-for-favorable-rulings plus incumbency plus geography as compared to the Democratic primary where those advantages would be maximized.
6:50 PM
GulfCoastLeftie said...
Your argument sounds logical, relampago, but I just can't buy it. There are some things I know that lead me to believe Rose wants an appointment. Cornyn will do what GWB tells him to do. Hutchison is more independent minded, but she'll fall in line for judicial appointments. You're right, $10,000 is chump change; however, the Rs don't have TRMPAC to launder corporate contributions any longer, do they? And $10,000 IS pocket change to Fil--that's no secret. A well-placed contribution of $25,000--$100,000 in selected races throughout the state could make a huge difference. Five or ten crucial, LEGAL contributions could very well vault Tokyo Rose over MANY other candidates. I try not to be cynical, but the motto in politics is, "What have you done for me lately?" And money doesn't just talk; it yells.
9:34 PM