Rodriguez v. State
| Docket Number | 01-22-00295-CR |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Parties | DENISE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1662580
Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
Appellant Denise Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on deferred-adjudication community supervision for two years. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt alleging several violations of Appellants' community supervision. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found two of the State's allegations true and sentenced Appellant to eight years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied without a hearing. This appeal followed.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal. In her second issue, she requests we abate the appeal so that she may file an out of time motion for new trial based on her allegations "she was denied the assistance of counsel during the period in which she could [have] file[d] a motion for new trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments] to the United States Constitution" and because her "[a]djudication counsel abandoned [her] appeal during the motion for new trial time period." In her remaining issues, she argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying her a hearing on her motion for new trial, (2) her attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the adjudication hearing, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to conduct an informal inquiry on Appellant's competency.
We deny Appellant's request to abate the appeal, and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellant Denise Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle without an agreed recommendation as to punishment.[1] The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on deferred-adjudication community supervision for two years. As part of her guilty plea and her acceptance of deferred adjudication, Appellant signed a document called "Conditions of Community Supervision." Relevant to this appeal, Appellant agreed under the Conditions of Community Supervision, that she would:
Three months after entering her guilty plea, Appellant was again arrested for evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The State moved to adjudicate Appellant's guilt asserting five violations of Appellant's Conditions of Community Supervision. Appellant was remanded into custody, and on March 15, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate guilt.
During the adjudication hearing, the State abandoned two of the five allegations asserted in its motion to adjudicate, proceeding only on the allegations that Appellant (1) committed a new offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, (2) failed to install an ignition interlock device on her car, and (3) failed to attend an intensive outpatient treatment program. Appellant appeared at the adjudication hearing with counsel[2] and pleaded "not true" to the allegations. Three witnesses testified at the adjudication hearing.
Officer Priscilla Leos, a deputy with the Harris County Sheriffs Department, testified that on December 21, 2021, she was on patrol around midnight when she observed a maroon Mitsubishi Montero SUV ("SUV"). She conducted a traffic stop because the tags were expired and the SUV did not signal when making a lane change. Officer Leos activated her lights and sirens and attempted to make a traffic stop, but the SUV did not stop.
As Officer Leos pursued the SUV with lights and sirens activated, the SUV failed to maintain a single lane traveling at a high rate of speed, at one point traveling up to 93 miles per hour in a zone with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Ultimately, the SUV ran through a red light and crashed into a concrete wall. Officer Leos identified Appellant as the driver of the SUV.
After the SUV crashed, Officer Leos "clearly [saw] that [Appellant] was changing seats." Officer Leos testified,
Officer Leos testified his pursuit of Appellant lasted about one or two minutes and spanned 1.6 miles. Appellant was detained for evading arrest. Officer Leos and her colleagues conducted a probable-cause search of the SUV. Another deputy found what appeared to be methamphetamine on the driver floorboard and brought it to the attention of Officer Leos. Officer Leos testified she believed 0.63 grams of methamphetamine was recovered.
On cross-examination, Officer Leos testified that Appellant exited the SUV on the back passenger's side. According to Officer Leos, Appellant was the only person in the SUV, having jumped from the driver's seat to the passenger seat to the backseat.
Dennis Davis is the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections' Court Liaison (probation) Officer for the 182nd District Court of Harris County. He testified Appellant was placed on probation on September 8, 2021 in Cause No. 1662580 for the third-degree felony of evading arrest with a vehicle. The trial court gave her a two-year probated sentence.
Davis testified he explained the terms and conditions of probation to Appellant on September 8, 2021. Relevant to this appeal, Condition 1 of Appellant's community supervision required that Appellant not commit any "offense against the laws of this or any other State or of the United States." Condition 21 required Appellant to install a "court-approved deep-lung breath analysis mechanism (ignition interlock) with photographic capabilities" on any vehicle she drove beginning September 8, 2021. And it further stated Appellant could "not operate a motor vehicle unless it [was] equipped with [the ignition interlock] device." Davis testified that Appellant disregarded this condition. Condition 24 also required Appellant to "[a]ttend Intensive Outpatient Program and/or Supportive Outpatient Program and aftercare until successfully completed or as designated by the court." According to Davis, Appellant did not complete that program.
On cross-examination, Davis conceded that Appellant was never given a date to begin the intensive outpatient program, although Davis "told [Appellant] that she needed to start the program." Given the absence of a required start date, Davis conceded that Appellant had not violated Condition 24.
Appellant testified she was never told to meet with Davis, the court's probation officer, and that her "regular" probation officer was in Baytown, Texas.
She stated she was not told or did not know she had a time limit for placing the ignition interlock on her car. And even had she known about the time limit, she would not have placed the device in her car within seven days because she was told to meet with her probation officer first. Appellant testified she did not have money to place the ignition interlock in her car because she was not working, as she had been on house arrest. She testified she had found a job shortly before her arrest on December 21, 2021, but after her arrest, she could not work.
When her trial counsel asked whether she had a valid registration sticker on her car and whether anyone was in the car with her on December 21, 2021, she stated she had "no comment on the case." Asked whether she was driving the car that night, she said, "No comment on everything."
On cross-examination, Appellant testified that after evading arrest on January 29, 2020, she was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. At that time, she signed a document identifying the conditions of her community supervision. She conceded that her signature appeared on the copy of the order of deferred adjudication dated September 8 2021, which included Appellant's conditions of community supervision. When asked whether her signature conveyed that she understood that her failure to abide by the conditions of community supervision could result in revocation of her community supervision or an adjudication of guilt, Appellant stated, "No comment." Appellant then invoked the Fifth...
To continue reading
Request your trial