Ex Parte Amezquita

Decision Date22 November 2006
Docket NumberNo. AP-75383.,AP-75383.
PartiesEx Parte Gilbert AMEZQUITA, Applicant.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Roland Brice Moore III, Houston, for Appellant.

Baldwin Chin, Assistant District Atty., Houston, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.

OPINION

JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRICE, WOMACK, HOLCOMB and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.

In deference to the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which support its recommendation to grant the relief that applicant has requested, the Court grants relief.

On February 6, 1998, the complainant in this case was brutally beaten at her place of employment, Burk's Plumbing,1 a business co-owned by her father. Two days before this assault, she had had a heated verbal altercation with applicant, who was working there at the time of the argument. Applicant was employed by a bail-bond company,2 but had been loaned to Burk's Plumbing, and after the argument, left the plumbing business and did not return. The complainant remained in a coma for ten days3 and, after recovering consciousness, was unable to tell police investigators who had assaulted her.4 On February 25, twenty days after the assault, when asked by police who had hurt her, the complainant whispered the name "Gilbert." She eventually selected applicant's photograph out of a photo spread, identified him at trial as her attacker, and testified at trial that applicant committed the instant assault on her.5 Applicant, a military veteran an with no criminal record, vehemently denied that he was the perpetrator and, at the writ hearings, presented evidence in support of his contention that an employee of the plumbing company, Alonzo "Gilbert" Guerrero, a parolee with a criminal history that included convictions for violent offenses, had committed the assault. Testimony presented at the hearing included evidence connecting the complainant's missing cell phone to Guerrero and showed that, shortly before the assault, there had been a confrontation between the complainant's brother and Guerrero over Guerrero's behavior toward the complainant.6

Applicant asserted a number of claims, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting multiple evidentiary hearings, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The writ record includes copies of police offense reports that reflect that the complainant's cell phone was missing after the assault and that the complainant had no idea where it was and had not missed it until a police officer mentioned it. The trial court found that the complainant "did not exactly remember what happened to her cellular phone." Those offense reports also reflect that information was gathered regarding several telephone numbers that had been called from the complainant's cell phone on the same day of, and shortly after, the assault. The trial court also found that trial counsel did not make any effort to contact Christina Allen, a known user of the stolen cell phone, or any of the owners of the telephone numbers dialed from the complainant's cell phone, and that "an investigation of the cell phone records would have lead to evidence favorable to the applicant in the primary case."

The trial court also found "that trial counsel did not investigate information contained within the police offense report which would have lead to information reflecting that an Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero had some relevance to the primary case." It also specifically found that, "had trial counsel investigated the names and cell phone numbers contained within the police offense report," he "would have had reason to investigate Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero prior to or after Applicant's trial in the primary case." Based upon writ-hearing testimony from an assistant district attorney, the trial court found that, in 2002, that assistant district attorney, accompanied by a district attorney's investigator, had spoken with Christina Allen, who had been linked to phone calls made from the complainant's cell phone after the assault alleged in the primary case. The trial court found that the assistant district attorney and investigator also met with a state-jail inmate, James Wilder, who told them that he had been in possession of the complainant's cell phone immediately after the assault7 in the primary case and that he identified Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero from a photo spread as the person from whom he had obtained the cell phone, but was unable to identify anyone in a photo spread which contained applicant's photo. The trial court found that Wilder testified at the writ hearings and identified Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero as person who gave him the cell phone in exchange for drugs, that Wilder had "let Christina Allen and everybody else use the cell phone," and that he had never seen applicant before.

Based upon the writ-hearing testimony of another investigator from the district attorney's office and the complainant's father, the trial court found that the complainant's father, who co-owned the plumbing company at which this offense occurred, identified Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero as the person who, on or shortly before the day of the assault, "had words" with his son, complainant's brother, about Guerrero's harassment of the complainant.

The trial court specifically found that, based upon the assistant district attorney's writ-hearing testimony, Christina Allen was identified in the police offense report that was made available to trial counsel prior to trial. That police offense report contains the name Christina Allen and lists the telephone number of her aunt as a number where she could sometimes be reached. The trial court also specifically found that Wilder received the complainant's cell phone from Alonzo Gilbert Guerrero some time shortly after the commission of the offense8 in the primary case, that Christina Allen obtained the complainant's cell phone from Wilder, and that Allen made calls from the complainant's cell phone.

To obtain habeas corpus relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) standards, applicant must show that counsel's performance "was deficient and that a probability exists, sufficient to undermine our confidence in the result, that the outcome would have been different but for counsel['s] deficient performance." Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Tex.Crim. App.2004). Counsel's performance is deficient if it is shown to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 51, and Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Prejudice to the applicant from counsel's deficient performance is judged by "whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), quoting Strickland, supra, at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 "As the Supreme Court explained, the purpose of the constitutional requirement of effective counsel is to ensure a fair trial." Id.

This Court has said that "[v]irtually every fact finding involves a credibility determination" and has "repeatedly recognized that the fact finder is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses." Ex parte Mowbray, 943 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). When the trial court's findings of fact in a habeas corpus proceeding are supported by the record, they should be accepted by this Court. Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 648 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 940 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). This Court "afford[s] almost total deference to a trial court's factual findings in habeas proceedings, especially when those findings are based upon credibility and demeanor." White, 160 S.W.3d at 50.

The writ record clearly supports and confirms the trial court's findings of fact. Because the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the record, this Court accepts them as correct. Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

One of the trial court's conclusions of law states, "Applicant has shown that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct any independent investigation of the facts of this case and trial counsel's failure to investigate the cellular phone records." It further concludes that applicant "was harmed by trial counsel's failure to conduct any investigation of the facts of this case and trial counsel's failure to investigate the cellular phone records[,]" and has shown that trial counsel "acted deficiently in failing to investigate the cellular phone records and that Applicant was prejudiced from the alleged deficient conduct since there has been a showing that additional investigation into the cellular phone records would have produced evidence favorable to applicant's defense in the primary case." It concluded that "the totality of the representation afforded Applicant was insufficient to protect his right to effective assistance of counsel[,]" that "Applicant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial[,]" and that "[t]rial counsel's insufficient representation denied Applicant a fair trial, due process and due course of law." The trial court ultimately concluded that applicant has demonstrated that his trial in the primary case was tainted by constitutional error, that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence, and recommended that this Court grant the relief requested.

There is no direct evidence that the cell phone was taken at the time of the assault. The complainant was beaten so badly that she was in a coma for ten days. At trial, the complainant testified that there were no other witnesses to the assault.9 No one testified to having witnessed the theft of the cell phone. The trial court's findings of fact, which are based upon the appellate record and which quote...

To continue reading

Request your trial
155 cases
  • Ex parte Ali
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 17 Mayo 2012
    ...fact in a habeas corpus proceeding are supported by the record, they should be accepted” by the reviewing court. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (citing Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 648 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 940 (Tex.Crim.App.1......
  • Ex parte Garcia
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 13 Julio 2017
    ...almost total deference to the habeas court's findings of historical fact that are supported by the record. Ex parte Amezquita , 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, we will defer to the habeas court's rulings on "application of law to fact questions" if the resolution of th......
  • Young v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 17 Julio 2019
    ...functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ " Ex parte Amezquita , 223 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Chandler , 182 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ). "[A]n appellant's failure to satisfy one ......
  • Ex parte Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Julio 2012
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2021 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2021
    ...assistance of counsel for counsel not to investigate whether a third party was the perpetrator of the offense. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (where the third party was in possession of the complainant’s cell phone right after the commission of the offense). ......
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2019
    ...assistance of counsel for counsel not to investigate whether a third party was the perpetrator of the offense. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (where the third party was in possession of the complainant’s cell phone right after the commission of the offense). ......
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2020 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2020
    ...assistance of counsel for counsel not to investigate whether a third party was the perpetrator of the offense. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (where the third party was in possession of the complainant’s cell phone right after the commission of the offense). ......
  • Right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...assistance of counsel for counsel not to investigate whether a third party was the perpetrator of the offense. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (where the third party was in possession of the complainant’s cell phone right after the commission of the offense). ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT