1

NO. 01-13-00851-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE 

 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 HOUSTON, TEXAS 

ERIK SANTANA GUANCHE § APPELLANT 

 § 

V. § 

 § 

STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE 

 

 APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 

 HOUSTON, TEXAS 

 TRIAL COURT NO. 1869024 

 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC 

Rick Soliz 

Attorney at Law 

Texas Bar Number 00785013 

P.O. Box 4051 

Houston, Texas 77210

 713-228-1900

 Counsel Pro Bono 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

ACCEPTED

01-13-00851-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/17/2015 11:39:22 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/17/2015 11:39:22 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

NO. 01-13-00851-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE 

 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 HOUSTON, TEXAS 

ERIK SANTANA GUANCHE § APPELLANT 

 § 

V. § 

 § 

STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE 

 

 APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 

 HOUSTON, TEXAS 

 TRIAL COURT NO. 1869024 

 

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

 Now comes, Erik Santana Guanche , Appellant in the above entitled and 

numbered cause, by and through his pro bono attorney of record, Rick Soliz, and 

submits this First Motion for Reconsideration En Banc. For good cause, 

Appellant shows as follows. 
3

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC 

Appellant submits this response to the opinion issued by the court on 

December 16, 2014, the ruling issued by the court on January 15, 2015 denying 

appellant’s motion for rehearing, and requests that the court reconsider en banc 

the following issues: 

Issue 1: The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the County Court 

Judge’s conduct was blatantly illegal pursuant to Texas Criminal law. 

Issue 2: The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Judge’s impartiality 

might not reasonably be questioned. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

ISSUE 1 

Sufficient law has been stated in Appellant’s brief to respectfully explain 

Texas law as it relates to this issue over the last decade and a half in the Court 
4

below. A Class A misdemeanor has occurred in every instance and on every 

occasion that an unlicensed interpreter has been utilized before the bench on 

items of substance. Such occurrences number in the thousands and occur in 

open court daily as evidenced by documentation, including the name and 

signature of those interpreting, filed in these cases. The applicable Government 

Code section, supported by two earlier referenced attorney general opinions, 

among other things, supports Appellant’s position. Appellant’s motion to recuse 

did not lack any procedural requirements regarding this issue either. Per 

Appellant’s brief, the Texas Law of Parties directly implicates the presiding 

judge of the court below as if she acted herself by criminally, illegally 

interpreting. Additionally, Appellant’s brief provides other specific laws 

violated stemming from this criminally illegal conduct. 

Moreover, under the extreme, rampant lawlessness in the court below, 

there is no scenario that will allow Appellant to proceed defending a prosecution 

without a violation of his due process rights. The illegal conduct is so 

commonplace that the Judge was taken aback and visibly and loudly upset that 

the undersigned Counsel had the audacity to refuse to illegally interpret, without 

a license, for a client in open court. Appellant complained in the Court below 

and was ignored. Allowing, and in fact promoting, the illegal interpreting in 
5

open court proceedings, speaks volumes for what the Judge below thinks of 

minorities, and Spanish dominant defendants generally. They are considered 

second class citizens not worthy of due process. Appellant fits both categories. 

It is of no consequence that a different County Judge was available and in fact 

administered the plea below since the same issues are prevalent in that court as 

well and all other Harris County Criminal Courts at Law. Also, it is common 

practice for any “visiting” judge to accommodate only procedures, rules and 

punishments of the presiding judge of the particular court visited. In this case, 

the temporary judge came in from down the hall or down the elevator for a few 

minutes to substitute in for the vacationing presiding judge of Court 7. 

Additionally, the daily law violations are witnessed, and in fact 

welcomed, by the assistant district attorneys and court police and most other 

staff members, since it helps “clear the docket” with the resulting pleas of guilty 

without the bother of due process. So in essence, we have unprosecuted 

criminal law violations occurring en mass in front of the Judge of Court 7, the 

district Attorney, and the court’s police. And again, once this ongoing scenario 

is apparent in the court, there is absolute disregard for Appellant’s civil rights, 

due process and justice generally. Appellant cannot have a fair trial in this court, 

nor be fairly monitored pretrial by the court nor can the court monitor defendant 
6

post trial (probation) nor fairly rule on any post plea items during the remainder 

of the court’s jurisdiction post plea. Defendant was hindered and stifled from 

complaining or filing motions post plea since to do so would be useless except 

for procedural purposes such as extending time periods for appeal. 

ISSUE 2 

Presumable to a high extent, minorities and Hispanic citizens believe the 

Judge’s partiality is crystal clear under the circumstances. Further, no 

reasonable person observing or knowing the court’s massive illegal activity 

would reasonably refuse to recognize the judge’s partiality to an entire class, 

language, entire national origin, or an entire people. The judge’s impartiality 

could not be questionable to a higher degree. Appellant is in this class, national 

origin, and people and is Spanish dominant. Appellant believes any reasonable 

person would reasonably question this judge’s impartiality. 

PRAYER 

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant prays that this motion for 

reconsideration en banc be unconditionally granted, that this Court grant the 
7

relief sought or set the matter for oral argument and after argument, reverse the 

judgment of the courts below and remand the case for trial on the merits. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the attached and foregoing 

document will be served on the Harris County District Attorney's Office. 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

The undersigned does hereby certify the word count in the body of this 

brief to be well under the maximum limit and about 1019 words. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Rick Soliz, 

Rick Soliz 

T.B.N. 00785013 

P.O. Box 4051 

Houston, Texas 77210 

713-228-1900 

Pro Bono Attorney for Appellant