Jiminez v. State, 01-86-0614-CR
| Decision Date | 12 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-86-0614-CR,01-86-0614-CR |
| Citation | 727 S.W.2d 327 |
| Parties | Raul Garcia JIMINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ricardo Noe Gonzalez, Juan Ramon Flores, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Harris County Dist. Atty., Roe Morris, Bob Loper, Harris County Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, for appellee.
Before WARREN, HOYT and DUNN, JJ.
The appellant waived a jury, and pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court found him guilty and assessed punishment at 20 years imprisonment.
In his only point of error, the appellant complains that he was denied an evidentiary hearing on his motion for new trial, in which he alleged that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in entering his plea.
At the hearing on the motion, the appellant acknowledged that his complaint could be made by a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, but he suggested to the trial court that his motion for new trial was an efficient vehicle for developing evidence of ineffective assistance. The trial court concluded that there was no basis for a new trial and denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
The motion for new trial alleged that the appellant speaks Spanish, and has a very limited understanding of English. Consequently, he relied entirely on his attorney to explain the consequences of his guilty plea. The motion further alleges that trial counsel advised the appellant that he would receive no more than a five year sentence, and that counsel told the appellant that the complainant had made certain exculpatory statements, which counsel never investigated.
The record shows that the appellant indicated that he understood the trial court's admonishment regarding the proper range of punishment and his right to a jury trial. The appellant answered affirmatively when asked if he pleaded guilty because he was in fact guilty. He also acknowledged that he knew no punishment recommendation had been made, and personally identified his signature on his judicial confession. At no time did the appellant state that he did not understand English.
On some occasions, trial courts have granted hearings on motions for new trial in order to develop testimony regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. See Morris v. State, 696 S.W.2d 616, 619 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no pet.) (motion alleging counsel's negligent failure to call witnesses); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messer v. State
...for new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel is a matter entirely within the trial court's discretion. Jiminez v. State, 727 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). In considering a motion for new trial, the trial judge possesses broad discretion i......
-
State v. Garza, 13-89-066-CR
...Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 40.03, provided that new trials could be granted for the reasons listed "and for no other." See Jiminez v. State, 727 S.W.2d 327 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (trial court may refuse hearing on motion for new trial where only point raised is effe......
-
Dusenberry v. State
...within the trial court's discretion. Messer v. State, 757 S.W.2d 820, 827 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd); Jiminez v. State, 727 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). In considering a motion for new trial, the trial court possesses broad discretion ......
-
Reyes v. State
...Under the applicable rule, a new trial, or a hearing, is not required on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Jiminez v. State, 727 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no. pet. (citing Tex.R.App.P. 30(d)). Whether or not to grant a new trial on ineffective assis......