James Garza v. State
James Garza v. State
Opinion
ACCEPTED 04-15-00456-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/14/2015 2:34:44 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK NO. 04-‐15-‐00456-‐CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/14/15 2:34:44 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
JAMES GARZA.
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE 290th DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY TEXAS CAUSE NUMBER 2009-‐CR-‐12648A
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
EDWARD F.
SHAUGHNESSY
E.
Locust Street
San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 212-‐6700
(210) 212-‐2178 (FAX)
SBN 18134500
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii Table of Interested Parties ...................................................................................... iii Table of Authorities..................................................................................................iv Brief for the Appellant .............................................................................................. v Summary of the Argument ...................................................................................... 6 Argument and Authorities ....................................................................................... 9 Conclusion and Prayer ............................................................................................10 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………………………………………....12
ii PARTIES AND COUNSEL
TRIAL COUNSEL FOR THE STATE:
WENDY WILSON Assistant Criminal District Attorney Bexar County, Texas W.
Nueva San Antonio, Texas 78205
TRIAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
EDWARD F.
SHAUGHNESSY, III E.
Locust San Antonio, Texas 78212
APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL:
EDWARD F.
SHAUGHNESSY, III
E.
Locust Street
San Antonio, Texas
(210)212-‐6700
(210) 212-‐2178 Fax
SBN 18134500
TRIAL JUDGE:
MELISA SKINNER 290th Judicial District Bexar County, Texas
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyoming 2014)………………………………..……..10
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 102 S. Ct. 869 (1987)………………………………………....………10
Miller v. Alabama, _____ U.S._____, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)…………..………....7, 8, 9,
State v. Dull, 351 P.2d 641 (Kansas 2015)…………………………………………………….10
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014)………………………………………………...…10
iv NO. 04-‐15-‐00456-‐CR
JAMES GARZA,
§ COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH
Appellant
§
V.
§ COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
Appellee
§ SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Now comes the appellant, James Garza and files this brief in Cause
No. 04-‐14-‐00456-‐CR.
The appellant appeals from a judgment of the
290th District Court of Bexar County, Texas.
The appellant was indicted by a Bexar County grand jury for the
offense of Capital Murder on December 16, 2009.
He was subsequently
convicted by a jury and sentenced to Life, without the possibility of
parole, in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-‐ Institutional
Division.
That conviction was and sentence was appealed to this Court.
On October 12, 2012, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court
in all respects.
See: Garza v. State, (04-‐22-‐00891-‐CR, Tex. App.-‐San
Antonio, October 24, 2012) (2012 WL 5236048).
The appellant
subsequently sought and obtained a Petition for Discretionary Review
to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
On June 11, 2014, that Court reversed
the judgment of this Court and remanded the cause, to this Court, for
further proceedings.
Garza v. State, 435 S.W. 3d 258 (Tex. Crim.
App.
2014).
This Court subsequently reversed and remanded the cause to the
trial Court for purposes of resentencing.
Garza v. State, 453 S.W.3d 548
(Tex. App.-‐San Antonio, 2014)
The appellant thereafter appeared in the 290th District Court for
purposes of resentencing. (C.R.-‐179, 180, 181) Following a sentencing
hearing conducted, before the trial Court, the appellant was sentenced
to Life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-‐Institutional
Division. (S.C.R.-‐3, 4) The appellant thereafter filed a written notice of
appeal and this appeal was pursued. (C.R.-‐173)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The trial Court erred in refusing to provide the appellant a
sentencing hearing that complied with the dictates of the United States
Supreme Court set forth in Miller v. Alabama, _____ U.S._____, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012).
STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE FACTS
Prior to the sentencing hearing, ordered by this Court in its
opinion of December 23, 2014, the appellant caused to be filed a written
Motion fro Appointment of an Independent Expert Witness. (C.R.-‐167)
That motion sought two species of relief from the trial Court prior to the
“resentencing” hearing ordered by this Court.
It sought to have the trial
Court to appoint an expert witness in the issue of “mitigation”.
In
addition the motion requested that the “resentencing” be conducted
before a jury and that, the potential range be that of a traditional first
degree felony (Five years to Life)1.
(C.R.167 thru 170) On the date the
Prior to the onset of the trial the appellant had caused to be file a written Election of Punishment wherein he notified that he desired that a jury assess his punishment in the case was called for the “resentencing”, that motion was presented to the
trial Court.
After hearing arguments from counsel, the trial Court
denied the relief requested in the motion. (R.R.-‐9)
The trial Court then proceeded with an evidentiary hearing
limited to the single issue of whether or not the appellant was
seventeen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
The
appellant presented evidence that established that he was seventeen
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
The State of
Texas presented no evidence to contradict the appellant’s evidence on
that particular issue.
The trial Court then made a factual finding that the
appellant was seventeen years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense. (R.R.-‐13) Thereafter the trial Court assessed the appellant’s
punishment as Life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-‐ Institutional Division with the possibility of parole. (R.R.-‐14) An
amended judgment was entered to reflect the action of the trial Court.
(S.C.R.-‐3,4)
APPELLANT’S SOLE POINT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IN REFUSING THE APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR A PUNISHMENT HEARING CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT IN MILLER V. ALABAMA, ____U.S.____, S.CT. 2455 (2012)
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
As has been noted by both this Court and the Court of Criminal
Appeals, the appellant has never been accorded a sentencing hearing of
any sort and has been sentenced initially to Life without the possibility
of parole, and thereafter to Life.
As a consequence, the seventeen year
old defendant2 has never been accorded a sentencing hearing which
allowed him to present meaningful mitigation evidence, the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution3, as recently construed in
the context of defendant’s under the age of eighteen at the time of the
offense, mandates that offenders seventeen years of age or younger be
At the time of the offense.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. accorded a sentencing hearing that allows a sentence to take into
account the background and mental and emotional development of a
youthful defendant be duly considered in assessing his culpability.
Miller v. Alabama, supra, pg. 2467. (Citing: Eddings v. Oklahoma, 102 S.Ct. 869 (1987)).
The Court explained the rationale behind its holding that
life without the possibility of parole for youthful offenders was
inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment in the following terms:
Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude
a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age
and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances
attendant to it.
Miller v. Alabama, supra at 2468.
The sentencing protocol employed in the instant case is
fundamentally indistinguishable from that found flawed in Miller.
Life
in confinement is no less a mandatory sentence than Life in confinement
without the possibility of parole.
Consequently a mandatory sentence of
life for a youthful offender, such as that imposed herein, is violative of
the Eighth Amendment because it is a sentence that wholly fails to allow
for the admission and consideration of mitigating factors attributable to
the youth of the offender.
See: State v. Dull, 351 P.2d 641 (Kansas 2015);
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014); Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyoming 2014).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, James Garza,
prays that this Court, reverse the judgment of the trial Court and
remand the cause for purposes of a new punishment hearing and a
sentence imposed by a jury.
/s/Edward F. Shaughnessy,III
EDWARD F.
SHAUGHNESSY, III E.
Locust San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210) 212-‐6700 (210) 212-‐2178 (fax) SBN 18134500 [email protected] Attorney for the appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Edward F.
Shaughnessy, III, attorney for the appellant hereby
certify that a true and correct copy of the instant pleading was served
upon Nico LaHood, Criminal District Attorney for Bexar County, W.
Nueva, San Antonio, Texas 78205 by use of the U.S. Mail on this
the__14__ October, 2015.
/s/ Edward F. Shaughnessy,III
Edward F.
Shaughnessy, III Attorney for the Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Edward F.
Shaughnessy, III, attorney for the appellant, hereby
certify that the instant document contains 1365 words.
//Edward F. Shaughnessy,III
Edward F.
Shaughnessy, III
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.