### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 080 -CR

Di e go G ar c ia F lor e s , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3040 850 , HO NORAB LE JO N N. WISSER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Dieg o Gar cia F lores appe als his conviction for a g g ravated robbe ry with a firea rm. S ee Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 29.03(a) (2) ( West 2003). Appellant waived trial by jury and enter ed a ple a of g uilty without a plea barg ain. The trial court assesse d appellant’ s punishment at imp ri so nme nt f

or thi rt y -f ive y e a rs .
P OIN TS OF ER RO R Appellant adva

nces two points of e rror . First, appe llant con t ends that the trial court “ err ed in fa iling to admonish appe l l an t i n acc ordanc e with the mandatory provisions of Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 2 6
. 1 3 (a )( 4 ) and (c ).” The contention re lates to the re quired
a dmo nit ion

that if a de fe nd ant i s not a

c iti zen of the Un ite d St a te s, his g uil ty ple a to t he of fe ns e char g e d ma y r e s u lt in h is d e p o rtati o nan d

e xc lu s io nf

r o m a d mi s s io nto th e U n it e d St a te s an d

the denial of naturalization under fe dera l law. Second, a ppellant urg es that the trial c ourt err ed in fa ilingTh e re c or d in dic a te s th a t Ro be rt Sin g le ton

ha d a c on c e a le d w e a

po n p e rm it. 1 2 to g ra nt a he ari ngon

a pp e lla nt’ s ti me ly

fi le d a nd pr e se nte d moti on fo r ne w tri a l. We sha ll o ve rr ule both points of error

and af firm the convic tion.
F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Appellant does not c halleng e the suff iciency of the e vidence to support the judgme nt of conviction based on appellant’ s plea of g uilty befor e the court to the a lleg ations of the ag g ravated robber y indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 1.15 (West 2005). Br iefly stated, the re cord ref lects that on F ebrua

ry 19, 2004, Robert Singleton, a jewelr y salesm an , ar ri v ed at the Americus Di a mon d s tor e in the L inc oln Ce nte r in Aus tin
. As Sin g le ton re tr ie ve d a c a se of je we lr y fr om h is van and pla ced it on the g round, the case was g rabbe d, and Single ton was hit in the head. Ag un was pu sh e d a g a ins t Sin g le ton ’s he a d. Som e on e be g an s c re a min g a t hi m in Spa nis h. Sin g le ton wa s a

ble to s e e on e man f

la tte n t he ba c k ti re of

his va n. Sin g le ton

wa s th e n a

ble to g e t to the fr on t of

his motor vehicle, pull o u t h i s own g un, and fire at the assa ilants. One of the a ssailants with a g un 1 appea red to be hit as he fe ll back ag ainst the van. S ingle ton’s g un jammed. A sec ond or third man, y e lli ngand

wa vin g a g un , f ir e d at Sin g le ton . H a vin g un jamme d h is gun , S in gle ton re -e ng a g e d in the g un battle. As one of the assailants turned side way s to ge t into the Dodge g etawa y car , Singleton shot ag ain, hitting the a ssailant from the side.

Austin Pol ice of

fice rs b el i ev ed that ther e we re f our men in the Dodg e, which was found in the pa

rking lot of a nea

rby motel. The mo d u s o p er an di was similar to that of a Columbi an “c ell” fr om Houston. Office rs obtained blood, hair , and swe at from the abandone d3

Do d g e a u t o m o b i l e . T h e F B I t a s k f o r c e i n H o u s t o n w a s a l e rt e d a b o u t t h e r o b b e r

y a ndpo ssi ble g un sh ot w ound s.

On the same day , Houston Poli ce O ffice r Arthur Castillo went to the emerg ency room of the B ellaire Hospital in Houston reg ardinga shoot ing victim. Offic er Castillo identified appe llant as the man w ith a bullet wound, which enter ed on the r ight side of his chest and e x ited on the left sid e be low

the sh ou lde r. Ap pe lla

nt g a ve a fa lse name and

tol d a fa lse sto ry abo ut bei ng sh ot a s a vic timin a

ro bb e ry ne ar t he ho sp ita l. Wh e n O ff

ic e r C a sti llo le arn e d, a sh or t time la te r, of

the Au sti n
ro bb e ry , h e r e tu r

n e d t o t h e h o s p i t a l t o f

i n d t h a ta p p e l l an th a d

c h e c k e d h i m s e l f o u to f t h e h o s p i ta l. He wa s a ble to c oll e c t th e blo od

y sh ir t th a t a pp e lla nt w a s w e ari ngwhen he ent e re d th e ho sp ita l. Other w itnesses who viewe d the cr ime scene also testified.
AD M ON ITI ON I n c on ne c tio n w itha

pp e lla nt’ s c la ims that th e tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to pr op e rl y a dmo nis h appellant of

the conse quence s of his g uilty plea, we observe that article 26.13 provides in pertinent pa rt : (a ) Pr ior

to a c c e pti nga ple a

of g uil ty or a ple a of no lo c on te nd e re , th e c ourt sh a ll admonish the defe ndant of:

. . . . (4) the fa ct that if the de fenda nt is not a citiz en of the United States of Amer ica, a plea of g uilty or nolo contende re f

or the offe nse cha

rg ed may result in deportation, the exclusi on from admission to thi s country , or the de nial of natura liz ation under fede ral law
. . . .

. . . .4

(c) I n admonishing the defe ndant as herein provide d, substantial compliance by the cour t is sufficient, unless the def endant aff irmatively shows that he wa s not awar e of the conseque nces of his plea and that he was misled or harme d by the a dmo nis hme nt o f t

he c ourt
. (d) The c ourt may

make the a dmonitions require d by this article either

orally or in writing. I f the c ourt makes the a dmonitions in writing, i t m u s t rec eive a s t at em ent sig ned by

the def endant a nd the def

endant’ s attorney

that he und e r s ta n d s th e a d mo n it io n s an d

is aw ar e o f

th e c o n s e qu e n c e s o f

h is plea. I f t he de fe nd ant i s una

ble or re fu se s to sig n th e state me nt, the c ou rt sh a ll m a k e t h e a d m o n i t i o n s o r a l l y.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 26.13(a )(4) , (c) , (d) ( West 2005).

Ar t i cl e 2 6
. 1 3 (d ) c l ea rl y

p er m i t s t h e ad m o n i s h m en t t o b e giv en o ra l l y o r i nwr i t i n g. Se e Va lde z v . S tat e , 8 2 S. W.3 d 784 , 787 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 02 , n o p e t.) ; Ru ffi n v . S tat e , 3 S.W .3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, no pet.). The rec ord ref lects that prior to t he a c c e pta

nc e of a pp e lla nt’ s p le a of g uil ty , h e wa s a dmo nis he d in wr iti ngin a ccorda

nc e wi th
art ic le 26 .1 3. Ap pe llan t e xec ute d a wr itt e n d oc ume nt e nti tle d “ Ple a of Gu ilty , A dmo nis hme nts , Voluntary

Statement, Waivers, Stipul ation & J udicial Confession.” The document was duly filed. I n the document a

mong the admonishments is found:
6
. Citi ze n s h ip
. I f y o u ar e n o t a c it iz e n o f th e U n it e d St a te s , p le a o f g uilty or nolo contender e for

this offense m ay

result in y our depor

tation. Your exclusion from admission t o this country , or y our d en i al of naturalization under f eder al law.
The doc ument contained another provision stating that appellant could rea d, write, and under stand the Spanish lang uag e, and that the entire doc ument had bee n explained to him i n the Spanish lang uag e by his attorney and a na med interpre ter. In the instrument’s provisions, appellantAp p el l ant contends that a total failure to admonish about the possible deportation 2 conseque nce o f t h e g uilty plea unde r ar

ticle 26.13(a )(4) cannot be a substantial compliance under art ic le 26 .1 3( c ). Th e re wa s no t, of c ours e , a tot a l fa ilure he re to a dmo nis h a pp e lla nt o f t he po ssi ble deportation consequenc es. Appe llant was prope rly admonished. 5 stated that he unde rstood the document and was awa re of the conseque nces of his ple a. Appellant signe d and swore to the document be fore a deputy district clerk. The document also c ontained the sig ne d s ta te men t of app ella nt’ s tr ia l a tto rn e y , M ike Lun a , th a t he ha d f ull y c on su lte d w ith appellant a

nd ca re fu l l y reviewed with appe llant the entire doc ument. Mr. L una then a dded, “I believe he [appellant] i s mentally competent, unde rstands the a dmonishments, is awa re of the conseque nces of

the plea, a

nd is knowingly

and voluntarily

en t er i n g his plea of guilty , waiver , stipulation and judicial confession.”

At the tim e of

the g uil ty ple a , th e tr ia l c ourt

dis pla y e d “ the do c ume nt” and

a pp e lla nt, with an i n t erp re ter pre sent, ac knowledg ed that he a nd his attorney

“we nt over this” and that he understood it. The doc ument was a dmitted into evidence.

The re cord r ef

l ects that a

ppellant was pr operly

admonished in writing about the possible d ep ortation conseque nce of his guilty

plea in ac corda

nce w ith article 26.13(a )(4)
. See Valdez , 8 2 S. W.3 d at 78 6- 88 ; Mo us sa za de h v . S tat e , 962 S.W .2d 261, 263-64 (Tex . App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1998, pet. re f’d) . We disag ree with appellant’s a rg ument that there was not substantial compliance with article 26.13( a)( 4). We likewise reje ct appe llant’s argument that beca use he w as 2 require d to chec k and ini tial cer tain space s on the plea- of-guilty document, the wr itten deportation
a d mo n is h me n t i nth e d o c u me n t w a s n o t e f f e c ti v e b e c a

u s e it w a s n o t c h ecke d an d

in it ia le d
. We observe that other a dmonishments required by article 26.13 and f

o u n d in the document we re notThe re cord doe s not revea l a ppellant’s citizenship. A prese ntence investigative repor t was 3 prepa red pr io r to the finalization of the g uilty plea, but it is not a part of this appe llate re cord. Appellant simply

calls attention to an off

icer ’s testimony

that t h e m o d u s opera

ndi of the robbe ry of fe ns e wa s li ke tha

t of a Col umb ian “ c e ll” or

g angfr om H ou sto n. Th is a lon e do e s n ot e sta bli sh appellant’ s nationality

or citizenship. “A motion for ne w trial is a prer equisite to pr esenting a point of err or on appe al only when 4 nece ssary to adduce fac ts not in t he re cord.” Tex. R. App. P . 21.2. 6 c he c ke d a nd ini tia le d, y e t a

pp e lla nt d oe s n ot c omp la in t

hat th e se a dmo nit ion s w e re no t pr op e rl y g iven under

article 26.13. The fir st point of error is overrule d. 3
MOTION F OR NEW TRIAL I n his se co n d p o i nt of err or, appe llant contends that the “ trial court e rre d in failing to g rant a hear ing on appellant’ s timely filed and prese nted motions for new trial
. ” A p p el lant’s motion was based on a

claim of inef

fec tive assistance of trial counse l and a l l eg ed fa cts not deter minable from the r ecor d. See Tex. R. App. P . 21.2. Appellant ’s m o tion for new tr ial was 4
overr uled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P . 21.8(c)
. We r eview a trial court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hear ing on a

motion for new tria l for an a

buse of discr etion. W

all ac e v . S tat e , 106 S.W .3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The rig ht to an evidentiar y hear ing to de velop matters a lleg ed within a motion for new tria l is not absolute. Re

y es v . S tat e , 84 9 S.W. 2d 81 2, 81 5- 16 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). To e sta bli sha ri g ht t o
a he a ri ngon a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, t

he mot ion

and su pp or tin g a ff ida vit or af fi dav it s nee d o nly ref lect re asonable g rounds for r elief that are not determinable from the r ecor d. Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 74 S.W .3d 19, 21-22 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002). I t is not necessar y that the motion for new tr ial and
acc ompanying a ffidavits establish a pr ima fac ie ca se for a new trial. J or da n v . S tat e , 883 S.W .2d7

664, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). I n addition to a timely filed motion with supporting affidavits that de mon str a te re a so na

ble g ro un ds fo r be lie vin g so me e rr or ha s oc c ur re d, the mot ion

mus t be tim e ly prese nted to the trial cour t. See T e x. R
. A p p . P. 2 1. 6; Ro zel l v . S tat e , 176 S.W .3d 228, 23 0 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. T o p r e s e n t a m o t i o n i n t h e c o n t e xt o f a m o t i o n f o r n e w t ri a l, the def endant must g ive the trial c ourt ac tual notice that he has timely filed a motion for ne w trial and re quest a he aringon said motion. Ro ze ll , 1 7 6 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 3 0 ( c i t i n g Car ra nz a v . S

tat e , 960 S.W .2d 76, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). When the se requisites have been f ulfilled, a def

endant’ s rig ht to an evidentiar

y hear ing on his motion for ne w trial at t ache s and the he aringbecome s mandatory
. Jordan , 883 S.W .2d at 665.

Her e, appe llant’s motion for new tria l was timely fi l ed on J anuar y 11, 2005, and timely prese nted on the same day
. No further action on the motion was taken and the motion was
ov e r r u l e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l aw . W e m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u rt c l e ar l y a b us e d it s dis c re tio n in

fa ili ngto a c c or d a

pp e lla nt a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ngon

thi s mo tio n f

or ne w tri a l. Was the motion prope rly verifie d? The motion is supported b y t h e u n s worn d ec l ara tion of an inmate sig ned by appellant unde r the pe nalty of per jury
. See T e x. Ci v . Pr ac. & Re m. C ode Ann
. §§ 13 2. 00 1- .0 03 (We st 2 00 5) ; Ow e ns v . S tate , 763 S.W .2d 489, 490 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pe t. ref’ d). I t simply decla res that the statements in the motion for new trial are wi t h i n t h e p ersona l knowledg e of the decla rant a nd are “true and cor

rec t,” and that other matters in the motion not within t he per sonal knowledg e of the decla rant are “ believed” to be “true and cor rec t.” The declaration does not distinguish betwee n statements that ar e within his personal knowl edge a

nd those that are not. The for m of the unsworn de clar ation, howeve r, appe ars8

satisfac tory

in light of Ba hm v . S

tat e , ____ S.W .3 d ___, No. PD-0273-06, 2007 Te x . Crim. App. L E XIS 2 2 6 , at * 7 -9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . Fe b
. 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( re v er s i n g Ba hm v . S tat e , 184 S.W .3d 792 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2006), and r emandingcause to trial court for evidentiar

y h ea ri n g). The
un sw or n de c laratio n itse lf do e s not state fa c ts re la tin g to t he ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la im. I t me re ly makes re fer ence to the statements in the motion.

Ex amining the statements in the m o t ion, we obser ve that appe llant ge nera lly aver s that his trial counsel did not conduct a complete investig ation of the fa cts and lawprior to advising
a pp e lla nt t o w a ive tr ia l by

jur y and e nte r a g uil ty ple a be fo re the c ourt
. Specifica lly , appellant a lleg es that his trial counsel nev er advised him that Robert Singleton, the c omplainant, was una ble to identify

appellant a s having been at t h e ro b b ery scene . The fa cts surroundingthis alleg ed fa ilure ar e not set out. The recor d ref lects that prior to a

ppellant’s g uilty pl ea , t h e trial court conducte d a hea ring on a pre trial motion to suppress identification evidenc e. Appellant, who speaks Spanish, was pre sent and a n interpre ter wa s shown to have be en
s w o r nf o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e h e ar i n g . T h e t w o S t a t e ’ s w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d i nt h e E n g l i s h l an g u a g e . It appea rs the interpr eter translated for appellant. Singleton testi fied that he had bee n unable to identify appellant from a photogr aphic sprea d and was unable to make an in-c ourt identification of a ppellant
a s o ne of his a ssa ila

nts
. Th e tr ia l c ourt ov e rr

ule d the mot ion be c a

us e the re wa s no ide nti fi c a tio n to be suppre ssed. The r ecor d ref lects that appe llant had knowledge of t he lac k of identification prior to the g uilty

plea. Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t hi s tr ia l c ouns e l f a ile d to adv ise h im that an e xpe rt wi tne ss could be a

ppointed to challeng e the State’ s DNA e vidence . No other f acts a bout this assertion areAt the pre trial suppression of identification evidence hearing , Detec tive Roy Gay testified, 5 on cross-e x amination, that appellant g ave a fictitious name when he was arr ested in Houston and that the blood work was sent to the Tex as Department of Public Safe ty under that “alias” and “kind of scre wed up the DPS.” The DNA results had not rea ched Detec tive Gay at time of the Septembe r 14, 2004 hear ing. T he guilty plea pr ocee dings took plac e on Nove mber 23 a nd Dec ember

13, 2004. 9 alleg ed. No DN A evidenc e wa s offe re d b y t h e S t ate in the guilty plea pr ocee dings. The rec ord shows that blood was found in the g etawa y Dodg e ca

r and that a bloody

shirt was re cover ed at the Be llaire Hospital in Houston wher e blood work on appellant was done. Howeve r, the re sults of any DNA a naly sis are not shown by

the re cord. 5 Appellant fu rt h er alleg es that his counsel fa iled to advise him about the leg ality of his arre st under an a

rre st warr ant not supported by probable cause . The claim is ma de without other fac ts be ing reve aled. The date of the arr est is not g iven, the name of the c ourt issuing the w arr ant is m iss ing , a

nd wh y no pr ob a ble c a us e e xiste d is no t me nti on e d. Mo st i mpo rt antl y , th e re is n o c la im that e vid e nc e wa s se ize d a s a re su lt o f t

he arr e st. Appellant complains that his trial attorne y did n o t ad v i s e him of the a ccomplice witness rule. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 ( West 2005). The name of a c o-def endant
or o th e r p arty w h o mi g h t b e a w it n e s s f o r th e St a te is n o t g iv e n , n o r is an e xp la n a tion made about how this failure to advise af fec ted appe llant’s j u ry

waiver or g uilty plea. No a ccomplice witness testified.

The motion for new trial enumer ates a laundry list of other “fa ilures to advise,” which
are asser tions without supporting f acts. Appe llant urg es that his counsel fa iled to advise him thatWe do not rea ch the State’s contention that appellant failed to pre serve any complaint for 6 appea l. The State conte nds that while appellant reque sted a hear ing on his motion for new tria l, he never obtained a r

uling on that r equest or obje cted to the trial court’s re fusal to rule. See O estrick v . S tat e , 939 S.W .2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref ’d); c f. T orres v . S tat e , 4 S.W .3d 29 5, 29 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Di st .] 1999 , n o p e t.) ; Ve ra v . S tat e , 868 S.W .2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no pet.). 10 (1) in order to c onvict h i m , t h e S tate had to pr ove that he use d or exhibit ed a fi re arm or kn e w that a pa

rt y to the c ri me ha d and int e nd e d to us e a fi re arm in t h e c o m m i s s i o no f

t h e r o b b e r

y; (2) a jury

could find him g uilty

of a le sser in cl u d ed o ff

en se if the jury

had a rea sonable doubt about the f irea rm alleg ation; (3) a jury

could not g rant probation unless a motion for probation wa s filed; (4) wher e a jur

y trial is waived, the tr ial court c annot g rant proba tion upon a conviction for a g g ravated robbe ry with a fire arm; and (5 ) his pa

ro le e lig ibi lity

wo uld be a ff e c te d b y an a ff ir ma tiv e fi nd ingof

the us e of a fi re arm . Ap pe lla nt’ s p le a din g s n e e d n ot re fl e c t ea c h an d ev e ry c omp on e nt le g a lly re qu ir e d to establish relief

, but must reflec t r e a s o n a

b le gr o u n d s e xist to believe that counsel’ s repr esentation may have be en inef

fec tive. See M

artinez , 74 S.W .3d at 22. The question is not whether the trial cour

t ha s r e a so na

bly de nie d th e mot ion

fo r a ne w tri a l, b ut r a the r w he the r t he tr ia l c ou rt has re a so na bly denied a ppellant a he aringon his moti on for a new tria l. See W

allace , 106 S.W .3d at 108. We c on c lud e that th e ple a din g s in the mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l are ins uff ici ent t o demonstrate that rea sonable g rounds exist to show that err or has occur red. The trial c ourt did not
a bu se its dis c re tio n in

fa ili ngto a c c or d a

pp e lla nt a he ari ngon

the mot ion

fo r n e w t ri a l. The sec ond 6 point of err or is overr

uled.11 The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Onion* Affir med Filed: May

9, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh

* Be fore J ohn F. Onion, J r., Presiding J udg e (re tired), Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assig nment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 1998).