Ramos v. State

• Docket Number: 13-22-00293-CR
• Decision Date: 21 December 2023
• Parties: ANDREW SALAZAR RAMOS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

ANDREW SALAZAR RAMOS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 13-22-00293-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

December 21, 2023

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County Texas.

Before Contreras Chief Justice and Benavides and Tijerina, Justices.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Appellant Andrew Salazar Ramos was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual assault, a first-degree felony see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021; one count of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony, see id. § 22.02(a)(1); and one count of aggravated kidnapping, a first-degree felony. See id. § 20.04. He was sentenced to eighty years' imprisonment for the first-degree felonies and twenty years' imprisonment for the second-degree felony, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Ramos challenges his convictions by eight issues on appeal arguing: (1) the trial court erred by failing to re-evaluate his competency during trial; (2) the trial court erred by removing him from the courtroom during trial; (3) the trial court was biased, depriving him of a fair trial; (4) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; (5, 6, and 8) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence; and (7) the State made an improper argument to the jury about his parole eligibility. We affirm.

I. Background

Counts 1 through 3 of the indictment alleged that Ramos intentionally or knowingly caused the penetration of the sexual organ and anus of Isabela Gomez^[1] by his sexual organ and finger, without her consent, and in the course of the same criminal episode, caused serious bodily injury or attempted to cause Gomez's death by striking her with his hand, kicking her with his foot, and strangling her. See id. § 22.021(a)(1)(A)(1), (a)(2)(A)(i). Count 4 alleged that Ramos intentionally or knowingly caused the penetration of Gomez's mouth by his sexual organ, without her consent, while "caus[ing] or plac[ing] [her] in fear" that she would imminently suffer death or serious bodily injury. See id. § 22.21(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(2)(A)(ii). Count 5 alleged that Ramos, using a deadly weapon, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused serious bodily injury to Gomez by striking her with his hand, kicking her with his foot, and strangling her. See id. § 22.02(a)(1), (a)(2). And Count 6 alleged that, with intent to inflict bodily injury on Gomez to violate or abuse her sexually, or to terrorize her, Ramos intentionally or knowingly abducted her by moving her from one place to another or confining her and intended to prevent her liberation by using or threatening to use deadly force. See id. § 20.04(a)(4), (a)(5).

A. Competency Evaluation

Before trial, Ramos's court-appointed counsel filed a "Motion for Competency Examination" stating that, during their initial meeting, Ramos "generally seemed that he did not understand the gravity of proceedings and the consequences of pleading guilty to the offense charged." Psychologist Gregorio Pina III, Ph.D., was appointed to evaluate Ramos's competency to stand trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.021. In a report dated May 17, 2019, Pina stated that Ramos "attempt[ed] to control the evaluation through a guarded, annoyed, and negativistic approach." According to Pina, Ramos "was articulate, detailed, but overly assertive in providing his defense plan that included evidence, witnesses and the alleged words of his attorney." Ramos told Pina that he had been assaulted while he was incarcerated, and therefore Ramos mistrusted "everybody except family and his [a]ttorney." The report states that Ramos's "negative insight contradicted his verbal abilities that included clear, deep essential issues as to his legal situation. In this fashion he demonstrated he was exaggerating symptoms of mental illness which appeared accompanied by primitive denial." Pina stated that Ramos was dismissive of his inquiries and provided "flippant" answers, although Ramos "demonstrated he understood the critical elements of competency to stand trial, by answering questions directly and succinctly, as if their elementary nature were being dismissed."

Pina's report contained the following additional pertinent findings:

• Ramos "is able to factually and rationally describe the charges" against him and "demonstrated factually understanding the behaviors to which the charges refer";

• Ramos "is able to provide detailed information of the alleged crimes" and "is able to challenge information he disagrees with in the offense report";

• Ramos suffers from "paranoia toward the detention center" where he was allegedly assaulted, "which bears on his ability to disclose to counsel pertinent facts, events, and states of mind";

• Ramos "may or may not choose to assist his [c]ounsel in providing information as to events in question," though "this appears to be a volitional issue after careful probes";

• Ramos "provided plausible but also unreasonable account of his behaviors around the time of the alleged offense" and "is further able to provide an account of the behavior of relevant others around the time of the offense";

• Ramos "demonstrated he comprehends (legal, psychological and other) advice, but may choose not to take it";

• Ramos "demonstrated he had the capacity to make a reasoned choice about defense options (e.g.[,] trial strategy, guilty plea, plea bargain, proceeding pro se, pleading insanity, nolo contendere, etc.) without distortions";

• Ramos "possesses an ability to rationally apply knowledge to his current case and make decisions in his best interest";

• Ramos "has an appreciation of appropriate courtroom behavior" but "demonstrated he may not be able to manage his words, emotions and behavior in the courtroom"; • Ramos "was not psychotic with a caveat. That is, he demonstrated narrow delusions as to how his attorney should handle his 'case.' This included technicalities about the law which may be unrealistic. . . . The narrow delusions he experiences may or may not affect his ability to handle appropriate courtroom behavior as this vacillated within the evaluation. Part of the issue is not mental illness, but a stubbornness personality characteristic at this phase of his life";

• Ramos "demonstrated he mostly has the capacity to testify relevantly during evaluation, but may jump to another topic that has to do with his defense strategy";

• Ramos "demonstrated he could poorly manage his emotional and communicative difficulties during an evaluation by disagreeing, and by analogy to a trial."

Overall, Pina concluded in his report that Ramos was competent to stand trial, and he recommended "[n]inety day inpatient treatment with enforced medications for Major Depressive Disorder."

In a separate "Certificate of Psychological Examination for Mental Illness," Pina stated that he diagnosed Ramos with major depression "with [n]arrow [d]elusions with primitive denial and oppositionalness." The certificate further stated that

[Ramos] is mentally ill, and that, as a result of that illness, [he] will, if not treated, continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress and will continue to experience deterioration of [his] ability to function independently and make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

On May 28, 2019, the trial court signed a "Judgment of Competency" stating that it had considered Pina's report and determined that Ramos was competent to stand trial.^[2]

B. Trial

At trial, officer Genardo Gonzalez of the Edinburg Police Department testified he and other officers were dispatched on October 7, 2019, to apprehend a suspect at a ranch on Benito Ramirez Road. Gonzalez spoke with the ranch's owner, who advised him that Ramos was at the property earlier and had asked for the key to a red Ford Mustang. Another officer then reported locating the Mustang at a hotel on East Canton Road. Officers received information that Ramos was staying at a particular room in that hotel, so they prepared to forcibly enter the room. When the officers announced their presence, Ramos opened the door and let them in. Gonzalez observed Gomez on the bed in the room without clothes, but he did not see her condition. As officers arrested Ramos, he "was making statements to the other officers and being a little uncooperative and being a little aggressive." Gonzalez denied that he was questioning Ramos at the time; however, he conceded that officers asked Ramos whether he had anything on him.

Bodycam recordings of police activity at the ranch and at the hotel were admitted into evidence. It is undisputed that Ramos was not administered Miranda-type warnings at the hotel or while he was being taken into custody.

Gomez testified that, in early October 2017, she worked as a waitress at a strip club. At around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of October 9, around closing time, Ramos approached Gomez, "grabbed [her] hand," "sat [her] down on his lap," and began kissing her. Gomez stated it was not unusual for customers to act this way. Gomez stated that Ramos wanted to take her to a "private room," but that was only for "dancers," not waitresses. Security then asked Ramos to leave because the club was closing. Gomez stated she tried to call her husband to pick her up, as she usually did at closing time, but he did not answer. She then intended to ask her friend and co-worker for a ride home, but she saw that her friend's car was not in the parking lot. Ramos then approached her and asked if she needed a ride home. She said yes and they left in Ramos's car.

Gomez said Ramos began driving recklessly on the expressway, so she asked to be dropped off at Walmart....