## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

NUM BER 13-06- 0061 3-CR TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellan t,

v . FE LIX CA ST ILL O, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt o f W illacy C ou nt y , T exas .
NUM BER 13-08- 0034 3-CR I N R E : T H E S T AT E O F T E X AS
On Petit ion fo r M an da mus R elief.


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez2

T h e S tate indicted app ellee, Felix Castillo, f or atte mp ted murd er and dea dly condu ct. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 5.0 1(a), 19 .02 (1), (2), 22.05 (2)(b) ( Verno n 20 03). By par all el int er loc utor

y appeal and peti ti on for mandamus re li ef, the S tate compl ain s o f the t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of its moti on for cl ar ific ati on of an or der pr ohi bit ing the int ro duct ion of ev ide nce from a pr ev iou s t ri al. W e dis mis s the Stat e's appeal for w ant o f jur is dic ti on and d e n y m a n d a mu s r e l i e f. I. Bac kg ro und In a pr ev iou s c ase, C ast il lo w as tr ied for attempt ed mur der . I n tha t c ase, the Stat e all eg ed th at C ast il lo shot at the a ll eg ed v ic ti m as the v ic ti m w as lea v ing a s tor e. Se e St ate v. Castillo , No . 495 7-C (197th Distri ct Ct., W illacy Count y , Te x . Sep tem ber 30 , 200 5). Castillo w as acquitte d. T he Sta te the n indicte d Castillo f or a ttem pte d mu rder and dea dly condu ct, al leg ing thatmember s o f a family w er e i nju re d w hen c aug ht i n the mid dle of the shoot ing of the a ll eg ed v ic ti m in C ast il lo' s p re v iou s t ri al. Cas ti ll o fil ed a moti on i n l imi ne r eq uest ing thatthe tr ial court"inst ru ct the pr osec uti ng attor ney n o t t o me n t i o n , r e fe r t o o r o t h e r w i s e b r i n g b e fo r e t h e j u r y e i t h e r d i r e c t ly or indirectly the ma tters set fo rth abo v e w ithou t f irst obt aining a specif ic ruling from the Cou rt outs ide the pr esenc e of the jur y thatsu ch r eferenc es and t est imony i s p ro per

and
a d m iss ib le ." Th e "m a tt e rs s e t f o rt h ab o ve" in clu d e d , a m o n g ot h e r th in gs, th e f o llo wing: T hat [Castillo] ma y

have been previ ously conv icted o f any criminal of

f ense o r m a y h a ve b e e n ch a rg e d o r a rr e s t e d f o r a n y cr im in a l o f f e n s e o r m a y h a ve any cr imi nal ca se pr esent ly pendi ng ag ain st him; and That [C ast il lo] has committe d other cr imes , bad acts or ex tr aneous off enses w hic h ar e not par

t of thi s i ndi ctment

. The r ecor d does not cont ain a w ri tten or der r uli ng on C ast il lo' s mot ion i n l imi ne.In i ts p ro p o s e d "O rd e r S u p p re s s i n g E v i d e n c e ," t h e S ta te s p e c i fic a l l y a s k e d th e tri a l c o u rt to 1 d e te r m in e w h e th e r to a llo w o r n o t a llo w th e f o llo w in g e v id e n c e f r o m th e p r e v io u s tr ia l:

1

. T h a t w itn e s s O v ie d o o n M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 w a s e m p lo ye d a s a c le r k in R a ym o n d v ille Super et t e a conv eni ent st or e[

. ] Al l owed __ ___Not Al l owed___

__ 2. T hat wi t ness O v i edo pr i or t o M ar ch 17 , 200 4 knew bot h Defe ndant Fel i x C ast i l l o an d t he v i ct i m Juan Al f ar o. Al l owed___ __N ot Al l owed___

__ 3. T hat wi t ness O v i edo on M ar ch 17 , 200 4 saw b ot h t he De fen da nt' s car and t he v i ct i m ' s c ar i n t he p ar k i ng l ot of t he st or e at t he t i m e. Al l owed___ __N ot Al l owed___

__ 4. T hat wi t ness O v i edo on M ar ch 17 , 200 4 saw t he g un f i r e com i ng o ut of

D ef endan t ' s car
. Al l owed___ __N ot Al l owed___

__ 5. W i t ness O v i edo saw t he g un f i r e com i ng o ut of D ef endan t ' s car
. Al l owed___ __N ot Al l owed___

__ 6. W i t ness O v i edo on M ar ch 17 , 200 4 saw t hat D ef endan t ' s car went i n t he sa m e di r ect i on a s v i ct i m ' s car
. Al l owed___ __N ot Al l owed___

__ (C i ta ti o n s fro m re c o rd o f p re v i o u s tri a l o m i tte d .) 3 In a pro pose d "Ord er Sup pressing Ev iden ce," the St ate requested that the trial court
cons ide r "ev ide nce pr off er ed by the Stat e of Tex as" and al low or di sal low the admis si on of cert a in e vid ence f rom Cast illo's prev ious trial as listed in the order. The trial court 1 condu cte d a h ear ing on t he St ate' s r eq uest ed or der , butdi d not si g n i t. Ins tead, the tr ial
cour t s ig ned an or der deny ing the Stat e's re q uest to off er ev ide nce and or der ing the S tate "not t o i ntr oduce ev ide nce re g ar din g the [pr ev iou s] tr ial ." T he St ate f iled a motion f or clarif ication of the orde r claimin g tha t the trial court "in
essen ce [ha d] no t ma de a ny orde r in tha t the order signed do es no t specif y w hat ev iden ce if any i s b ein g su ppr ess [ed] from the pr e viou s tr ial ( Cau se No. 4957- C) and can not b e used in t he c as e at b ar ." Th e St at e pr ay ed t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt s pe c i fi c al l y c l ar i fyw hich evidence w ould b e consid ered res judicat a an d w hich evidence w ould be con sidered "m ere infor mati on th at is onl y

sh ar ed by

both ca se sc enar ios ." The moti on for cl ar ific ati on w as den ied , a n d the trial court reite rated its instructions th at th e Sta te w as "n ot to introdu ce4

ev ide nce, w hether

or not sai d ev ide nce w as pr off er ed by the Stat e of Tex as in Cau se No. 4957- C that w as tr ied on S eptember 12, 2005[, ] and w her eby the Defendant , F eli x

C ast il lo,
w as acq uit ted b y

a j ur y ." II. N o Int er loc utor y Ju ri sdi cti on The Stat e ur g es thi s C our t t o c onst ru e C ast il lo's m o ti o n i n l imi ne as a mot ion to suppr ess ev ide nce, and to cons tr ue the tr ial cour t' s or der as an o rd er

g ra nti ng that moti on to s uppr ess
. To do s o w oul d pr ov ide the Stat e w it h s tatut or y auth or it y

to file an int er loc utor

y appeal

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 44.01( a) (5 ) (V e rnon Supp

. 200 7) (provi ding tha t the Sta te i s ent itled to app eal an order gr ant ing a motio n to sup press
ev ide nce)

. Cas ti ll o ar g ues that w e do not h av e j ur is dic ti on. W e ag re e. Ar ti cl e 44. 01( a) (5 ) all ow s t he St ate t o appea l from an o rd e r g ra nti ng a mot ion to suppr ess ev ide nce. See i d. I n Sta te v. Cow

sert , the cour

t of c ri minal appeal s d esc ri bed
a mo tion to supp ress evi den ce as "o ne in w hich the def end ant claims tha t certain e v iden ce shoul d not be a dmit ted a t t ri al for a constitutiona l, st atuto ry , ev ide nti ar y , or pr ocedu ra l
re ason. " Stat e v

. C owser t, 207 S.W .3d 347 , 351 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6). Here, Castillo's moti on in li mine did not ur g e that certai n ev ide nce shoul d not be admit ted at tri al. See i d. Ins tead, C ast il lo re q uest ed th at the tri al cour t rul e on the a dmis si bil it y of cer tai n ev ide nce, inc lud ing ev ide nce of pri or c rim in al char g es, ar re sts and pr ior bad act s. W e c annot
cons tr ue th e moti on i n l imi ne as a mot ion to suppr ess ev ide nce. See i d. Mo re ov er , ev en w er e w e to do so, the tr ial cour t' s o rd er di d not gr

ant the moti on to suppres s e v ide nce. Ar ti cl e 44. 01 "l imi ts the S tate' s r ig ht t o appea l to or der s t hat gr ant moti ons to s uppr ess ev ide nce. " Id . at 35 0 (em pha sis in orig inal). Th e orde r in this case d e n i e d t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n fo r c l a r i fi c a t i o n — a m o t i o n t h a t a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o c l a r i fy5

w h ich ev ide nce w oul d be cons ide re d r es jud ic ata a nd w hic h w oul d be cons ide re d infor mati on s har ed by

both ca se sc enar ios

. The or der deni ed r eli ef to the Sta te; it di d not gr ant r eli ef r eq uest ed by

a de fendant i n a mot ion to suppr ess ev ide nce. Acc or din g ly , bec ause the S tate can onl y file an i nter loc utor y appeal from t he g ra nt of a defendant' s mot ion to suppr ess , w e c oncl ude ar ti cl e 44. 01( a) (5 ) d o e s n o t pr ov ide a basi s fr om w hic h the Stat e can file thi s a ppeal

. The Stat e pr ov ide s n o oth er auth or it y

for thi s i nter loc utor

y appeal , and w e find none.

III

. Ma ndamus Rel ief T he S ta te a l s o r eq ue s ts t ha t w e i s s ue a w r i t of m an da mu s o r de r i ng t he t r i al c ourt to "p r op er l y

r ul e" o n th e i te ms l i s te d i n i ts p r opose d "O r de r S up pr es s i ng E v i de nc e. " To est abl is h tha t i t i s e nti tl e d t o m a n d a m u s r eli ef, the r ela tor must sh ow

that( 1) he h as no ade quate rem edy at law to r edre ss his alleged harm and (2) w hat he see ks to com pel is a minis ter ial act, not inv olv ing a dis cr eti onar y or j udi ci al deci si on. Sta te ex. rel. Youn g v. Si xth Ju dic ial

D is t. Cou rt

of Appeal

s a t T exar kana , 236 S.W .3d 2 07, 210 (Tex . Cr im. App. 200 7). How ever, mandamus maynot be used to gi v e the State a ri g ht t o appea l that w as not g ra n t e d b y

t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n A rt i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r imi nal Pr ocedu re
. But the li mita ti ons in Ar ti cl e 44. 01 on the S tate' s r ig ht t o appea l ar e no impedi ment t o the Sta te' s u se of manda mus t o c or re ct jud ic ial ac ti on that is clear ly co ntr ar y to wel l- set tl ed l

aw , w he th er th e l aw i s de r i v ed fr om a sta tute, r ule , or

opi nio n of a c our

t. Stat e ex r el. H eal ey v. Mc Me ans , 884 S.W .2d 772 , 774 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94) (em pha sis in origi nal). The Stat e ar g ues that the t ri al cour t i n thi s ca se i s "a cti ng i ncor re ctl y " by not infor ming i t as to w hat e v ide nce can be intr oduce d f ro m the pr ev iou s t ri al. H ow ev er , t he6

Stat e has not pr ov ide d any st atute , r ule , or

ca se-l a w p recedentthatfir mly and uneq uiv ocal ly

mandate thatthe tr ial co urt mus t r ule on t h e i te m s listed i n i ts pr opose d "Or der Suppr ess ing Ev ide nce, " and w e find none. See id

. Th e refore, t he St ate h as not shown that t he use of

m and am us w ill correct a judicial act ion th at is clearly contrary to w ellset tl ed l aw
. See id

. IV. C oncl usi on W e di smi ss the Stat e's int er loc utor y appeal for w ant o f jur is dic ti on i n c ause number 13- 06- 00613- CR , and w e deny the Stat e's peti ti on for mandamus re li ef in c ause number 13-0 8-00 343 -CR.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 5 th da y

of June, 2008.