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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 033 -CR

Ro be r t A nt honyVi lla r r e al , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR2003 -07 4 , HO NORAB LE JACK H. RO B ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant R obert Anthony

Villarre al of two c ounts of possession with intent to deliver a c ontrolled substance
. See Te x. He a lth& Sa fe ty Cod e Ann. § 4 81 .1 12 (We st 2003). The jur

y assessed punishment at 20 y ear s’ conf inement and a $10,000 fine for one count and 50 y ear s’ confine ment and a $10,000 fine for the second. I n a single issue on ap p ea l , Vi l l arr eal
a sse rt s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. We wi ll a ff ir m.
BACK GR OUND The fa cts of this case are uncon t es ted on appe al. The jury hear d evidenc e that Villarre al sold coca ine to Edwin Slater, an unde rcove r police of fice r with t h e Reg ional Nar cotics Ta sk F or c e wh o h a d b e e n a ssi g ne d to Ne w B ra un fe ls. Slate r t e sti fi e d th a t he me t V ill arr e a l w hil e trying to se t up a drug deal with another man who worke d for Villarrea l. Acc ording to Slater, it wasI n the hear ing on the motion for new trial, the district c ourt informed Villarre al that it let 1 him have the entrapment c harg e “out of an abunda

nce of caution” but did not re ally think that Villarre al was e ntitled to the inst ruction. 2 this man, and not Villarre al, who was the orig inal subject of the investigation. Slater beg an foc using
on Villarre al when, on one occa sion w hen Slater w as looking for this other man, V illarrea l informed Slater that he c ould give him “the same thing that person could and was in f act that pe rson’s sourc e.” Be lieving V illarrea l to be “the big g er f ish,” Slater made arr ang ements to buy coca i n e fr om Villarre al. Slater testified that he m ad e two purc hases f rom Villarre al, one in Jul y 2002 and
an o t h er i nNo v em b er

2 0 0 2
. S l at er

ex p l ai n edt h at i twa s Vi l l a r r e a l ’ s i d e a t o s el l h i m t h e d ru gs and that Slater did not entice him in any way to sell him cocaine. Villarre al also testified. He admitted to selling the c ocaine to Slater b u t claimed that he wa s induced by Slater into selli n g it. Bec ause of this testim ony , the def ense of entra pment was include d in the jury char g e. T h e j u r

y f o u n d V i l l ar r e a l g u i l t y. 1 Subsequently , Villarre al fil ed a motion for ne w trial, alleg ing the discovery of new evidenc e. Vi l l ar re al claimed in his motion that he had found a witness to refute Slater’s trial testimony that Slater had not orig i nally targ eted Villar

rea l in his undercover

operation. Villarrea l alleged t h at t his new evide nce, be y ond mere ly impeachingSlater’s trial testimony , bolstered Vi lla rr e a l’ s th e or

y that Slate r h a d e ntr a

pp e d h im. The district cour

t held a hea

ring on Villarre al’s motion. Villarrea l’s only witness at this hear ing, other t han S later, w as Juan Rosales, a convicte d felon who ha d previously worke d at Villarre al’s auto de tail shop. Rosales testified that approximately three months prior to Sl ater and Vi lla rr e a l’ s fir st dr

ug tr ans a c tio n, a man came int o Vill arr e a l’ s a uto de ta il s ho p, a sk e d f

or Vi lla rr e a l,Wit hin this i ssue, Villarre al also asse rts that the prosec utor failed to disclose the exist ence 2 of S la te r ’ s c o n f

id e n ti a l i n f

o r ma n t i nv io lati o no f

th e St a te ’ s d

u ty to d is c lo s e a ll mate r ia l e v idence favor able to the de fense
. See B rady v. M aryland , 3 73 U. S. 8 3, 87 (1 96 3) ; Ha rm v . S tat e , 183 S.W .3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We can find no support in t h e re cord f or this assertion, and Villarre al provides no mea ningf ul analy sis to support thi s claim. Villarre al also appe ars to confuse the require ments for g ranting a motion for new trial with the requir ements for finding a Bradyviolation. Bec ause the Brady iss ue is ina de qu a te ly br ie fe d, we wi ll no t a dd re ss i t. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.1(h). 3 and told Rosales that he had a friend who wanted to buy drug s from Villarr eal. This “f riend” turned out to be Slater and the man who approa ched Rosales was Slater’ s confidential infor mant. Rosales testified that he told this man that Villarre al was not available
. Howeve r, Rosales ar rang ed to meet Slate r h ims e lf

and e nd e d u p s e lli ngSlate r c oc a ine
. As a re su lt of thi s tr ans a c tio n, Ros a le s h ims e lf
was c onvicted of dr

ug possession with intent to deliver. On cr oss-examination, Ros ales a dmitted that Slate r n e ve r f

or c e d h im t o s e ll d

ru g s o r a sk e d h im t o h e lp “ make a sa le ” wi th V ill arr e a l. Villarre al also ca lled Slater to testify
. Slater testified that his infor mant introduced him to R os a le s but did no t ac tua lly a ssi st Sla te r i n ma kin g the purc ha se fr om R os a le s. Slate r a lso maintained that his orig inal focus dur ing the investigation was not Villarre al b u t s o m e other individual. Villarrea l also made seve ral attempts to i mpeac h Slater’s trial t es t imony on various
ma tte rs , n on e of

wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d r e le va

nt t o th e iss ue of

e ntr a pme nt. Finding Rosales’s testimony irrele vant on the issue of e ntrapmen t an d also not
cre dible, the district court de nied Villarre al’s motion for new trial. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N I n his only

issue on appea l, Villarrea l contends that the district court er red in de ny ing his mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. 24 We reviewa trial c ourt’s denia l of a motion for ne w trial for abuse of discretion. Cha rle s v . S tat e , 146 S.W .3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). To be entitled to a ne w trial base d
on ne wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e , V ill arr e a l w a s r e qu ir ed to sh owtha t: ( 1) the a lle g e d n e wl y discovere d evidenc e wa s unknown and un av ai l ab l e to him at the time of trial; (2) his failure to discover or

obtain t h e ev i d en ce was not due to a lack of diligenc e; (3) the new e vidence is adm i s s ible and is not merely cumulative, cor

roborative, collater al, or impea ching ; and (4) the
ne w e vid e nc e is p ro ba

bly tr ue and wi ll p ro ba

bly br inga bo ut a dif fe re nt r e su lt on

ano the r t ri a l. Ke e te r v . S

tat e , 7 4 S. W.3 d 3 1, 36 -3 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Ma rin os v . S tat e , 186 S.W .3d 1 67, 178 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).

We w ill a ssume wi tho ut d e c idi ng that Vi lla rr e a l satis fi e d th e fi rs t tw o r e qu ir e me nts , even thoug h the State ar g ues that Villarr eal did not exercise due diligenc e in di s co v er i n g the new
e vi d e n c e . R e g ar d l e s s , w e ar e c o n v i n c e d t h a t V i l l ar r e a l d i d n o t s a t i s f

y t h e t h i r d an d f

ou rt h
re qu i re m e n t s . A t m o s t , R o s al es ’s t es t i m o n y t en d s t o i mp ea ch S l at er ’s t ri al t es t i m o n y re gar d i n g a collat er al matter—whe ther the or igina l focus of Slater ’s investig ation was Villarr eal. Eve n
a s s u m i n g t h a t S l a t e r

d i d i n i t i a l l y f

o c u s o nV i l l ar

r e a l i nh i s u n d e r c o v e r

o p e r a t i o n , t h i s s a ys nothing a bout whether

Slater entra

pped Villarr eal into selling drug s on the dates in question. Whe n a de fe nd ant r a ise s th e de fe ns e of e ntr a pme nt at tr ia l, he mus t pre se nt a pr ima fac ie ca se: (1) that he enga g ed in the conduct char g ed; (2) beca use he was induced to do so by a law
e nf or c e me nt a g e nt; (3 ) wh o us e d pe rs ua sio n or oth e r me ans ; and (4 ) that tho se me ans we re lik ely to cause persons to commit the offe nse. He rn an de z v . S tat e , 161 S.W .3d 491, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rosales’s testimony did not address a

ny of those ele ments. I t is thus hi g hly unlikely that5

the new e vidence , even as s u m i n g that it was admissible, would have pr obably broug ht about
a dif fe re n t r e s u l t o n an o t h e r t r i a l
. T h e r e f o r e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o nin de nyingthe mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. We ov e rr

ule Vi lla rr e a l’ s so le iss ue on

a pp e a l.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Villarre al’s issue on appe al, we a ffirm the j u d gm ent of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Mar ch 6, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh