The issues grante d wer e 1 (1) Did the trial cour

t violate Appellant’s c onstitut ional and statutory right to a jury

trial by 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0319- 09

ER I C C H A R LE S H O BB S, A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI FTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

DALLAS COUN TY C OCHRAN , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and M E YE RS , P RI CE , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , AN D H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J . , co n cu rr ed in th e r esu lt . OP I NI ON T he t r i al j udge convi ct ed appe l l antof t he aggr avat ed ass aul t of hi s for m erbr ot her

- i nl aw . W e must deci de i f t he cour t of appe al s er r ed in u p h o lding t he t r i al cour t ’ s r efus al of appel l ant ’ s r eques t s t o ( 1) w i t hdr aw hi s j ur y w ai ver and ( 2) have a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on for

new t r i al
. W e hol d t hatappel l antw as not ent i t l ed t o w i t hdr aw hi s j ur y w ai ver , but he w as

1Hobbs Pag e 2

denying A

ppellant’s re quest to withdraw his jury waiver ? and (2) Did the trial cour

t abuse its discretion whe n it failed to hold a hea ringon the motion for new tria l which alleg ed matter s that werenot determinable from the r ecord? e n tit led to a h e a rin g o n h is m o tio n f o r n e w trial b e c a u se h e ra ise d m a tters n o t d e ter m in a b le fr om t he r ecor d, upon w hi ch he c oul d be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. I. A pp el l ant fi l ed a jur y -t ri al w ai ver on A pri l 26 , 20 07
. W hen t he judge cal l ed the case for a bench t r i al t hat s ame day , appel l ant ’ s couns el s ai d t hat he w as “not r eady ” and as ked f o r a c o n tin u a n c e b e c a u se (1 ) a c ritica l f a c t w itn e ss (R e g in a ld W h ite) w a s n o t p re se n t a s h is

m o ther w as i ll ; an d (2) co u n sel h ad just learn ed o f “ n ew ev iden ce ”– rec o rdin g s o f a p p ell an t’ s j ai l hous e t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i t h r el at i ves –t hatcouns el had nothad a c hance t o l i s t en t o and t hatm ade a ppel l antt hi nk “he’ d be bet t ers er ved bya j ur yt r i al
. ” T he pr os ecut or explaine d that t he r ecor di ngs w er e of c al l s fr om t he j ai l i n w hi ch

a p p e l l a n t “ t a l k s a b o u t a t t e m p t i n g t o p a y [ t h e c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s , B e n n e t t “ T o b y” G oodm an] t o l i e, t o payt he w i t nes s t o not s how up. ” The pr os ecut or s ai d t hatappel l ant
a lso talk s to [ h is e x -w if e , T a ju a n a H o b b s ] a b o u t n o t w a n tin g h e r to sp e a k to th e D .A .’ s o f

f ice . H e m a k e s c o m m e n ts to h is a u n t th a t ar e b a sic a llyth re a ts that h e w il l dea l w it h T ajua n a b ec au se sh e’s c o o p era ti n g w it h the D
. A
. ’s offi ce. H e al s o m akes t hr eat s t ow ar ds the compl ai ni ng w i t nes s [Toby G oodm an] , s ay i ng t hathe w i l l l ethi m know w hatt i m e i t i s fo r t he w ayhe t es t i fi ed i n t he bond hea r i ng. T he t r i al j udge s t at ed, B eca us e of t he natur e of t he conve r s at i on w hi ch s ounds l i ke may i nvol ve w itn e ss tam p e rin g a n d m a y in v o lv e a n e f f o rt to m a k e th is w itn e ss u n a v a ilab leHobbs Pag e 3

t o t he C our t , I ’ m goi ng t o al l ow t he St at e t o pr ocee d t o cal l t hi s w i t nes s and a llo w y o u to

– a llo w d ire c t a n d c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f th is w itn e ss a n d th e n w e ’ll r ece s s fort w o w eeks for y ou t o r evi ew any evi dence t hat w as pr offe r ed t o y ou t o d a y. D efe ns e couns el agai n as ked fora j ur yt r i al , but t he j udge de n ied i t , s ay i ng, “Y our cl i entw as w el l aw ar e. H e j us t di dn’ t s har e i t w i t h y ou aboutt hes e conve r s ati o n s if t hey actual l y di d occur . I ’ m goi ng t o deny t hat m ot i on. H e’ s exec ut ed a w ai verof hi s r i ght t o a j ur y . ” A ppel l ant t hen addr es s ed t he j udge di r ect l y , expr es s i ng confus i on t hathe coul d not have a j ur yt r i al
. T he t r i al j udge r ei t er at ed, “Y ou have a l r eadyw ai ved t hatr i ght
. ” T h e tr ial b eg an , an d the p rose cu tor ca ll ed T o b y G o o d m an , w h o test ifi ed that h is si ster, T aj uana H obbs , i s appel l ant ’ s ex- w i fe. M r . G oodm an s ai d t hat R egi nal d W hi t e and a ppel l ant pi cked hi m up one eve ni ng and as ked hi m t o go for a r i de. M r . G oodm an t hought t hatt hey

w a n te d h im to re -w a s h a p p e lla n t’ s c a r– s o m e th in g M r. G o o d m a n d id to s u p p o rt h is “ h a b it.” A ppel l ant dr ove t o a 7- E l even s t or e and ne xt t o a “moneym achi ne. ” Then, i ns t ead of dr i vi ng hi m hom e, appel l ant st op ped t he car i n thi s li ke a w oo ded area. N o l i gh t s o n, any t hing. A nd he just got out of t he ca r . A nd he pul l ed a pi s t ol out and he t ol d m e t o getout and get ou t of m ycl othes. I s ai d, “M an, w hat y ou t al king abo ut?” H e sai d, “G et ou t y ou r cl othes. I’ m ta lk in g a b o u t r ig h t n o w .” I s a id , “ M a n , y o u tr ip p in g . Y o u tr ip p in g .” A p p e llan t a c c u se d M r. G o o d m a n o f tak in g h is d isp o sa b le c a m e ra . A f ter a p p e llan t sh o t h is h an d g u n in the air, M r. G o o d m an p u ll ed d o w n h is pa n ts an d g o t ou t of the c ar. T hen [a ppel l ant ] j us t got t o t al ki ng and t al ki ng about
. . . t hi ngs hi m and ex- w i fe ha d been t hr ough and how w e bee n pl ot t i ng up on hi m an d this a nd th a t. A n d th e n h e ju st s h o t at m y f o o t. I f e lt t h e b u llet h it t h e sid e o f m yten n isHobbs Pag e 4

Acc ordingto the prosec utor, the ca se wa s rese t “numerous times” be causeeither sheor 2 defe nse counse l werein trial and bec ause de fensecounsel “ has had problems listening to the tapes.” And “this is why

seven months later

we’ re nowcontinuing this trial bef ore the Court.” s hoe buti t di dn’ t penet r at e.

. . . .

. . . I fel t l i ke he w as r eal s er i ous . I j us t s t ar t ed hol l er i ng and pl ay ed l i ke I w a s c ryin g . “ Y o u d o n e s h o t m e . Y o u d o n e s h o t m e .” T he ot herguys ai d, “Y ou ai n’ t s hot hi m . ” H e shot anot herr ound and i t w entacr os s m yhead. H e s hot anot herone and i t ki nd of l i ke w ent acr os s t he s i de of my ey e.

. . . .

. . . H e w as s ay i ng, “I ’ m t i r ed of t hi s . I ’ m fi t t i n’ t o put y ou aw ayr i ght n o w .” W h e n a tr u c k p u lled u p , ap p e llan t to ld M r. G o o d m a n to g e t b a c k in th e c a r, an d h e to ld W hi t e , “ Hol d t h e g u n o n h i m s o h e d o n ’ t j u mp o u t
. ” App e l l a n t t h e n d r o v e M r . G oodm an hom e and w enti ns i de w i t h hi m t o l ook ar ound. “[O ] n hi s w ayout he s t ar t ed knocki ng t hi ngs
over ” and as ki ng, “W her e i s s he? W her e i s s he?” A ft er appel l antl eft , M r . G oodm an ca l l ed 911. H e expl ai ned t hatappel l antl at er“t ol d m e i f I cal l ed t he pol i ce–he s ai d, ‘ I got b ond

m oneyand w hen I getout I ’ m goi ng t o l i ght y our as s up. ’ ” A ft ercr os s - exami nat i on, t he j udge r ece s s ed t he t r i al unt i l O ct ober18, 2007. T he 2 St at e re cal l ed M r . G oodm an w ho deni ed t hat he m ade up t he s t or yt o getback a t appel l ant f o r a b u si n g h is sis ter . H e a lso e x p lain e d th a t, be f o re a p p e llan t’s b o n d h e a rin g h e w a s, “ in

a r oundabout w ay , ” ur ged t o dr op t he cha r ges . H e s ai d T aj uana t ol d hi m t hatappel l antw as offe r i ng hi m $700 t o dr op t he char ges . T aj uana t es t i fi ed and confi r m ed t hatappel l antcal l ed her from j ai l and t old her t o o ffer M r. G oo dm an $ 70 0 to drop t he ch arges. A p p e llan t cal l ed R eginal d W hit e w ho gav e a verydiffer ent accoun t of the eve n t.Hobbs Pag e 5

Ho bbs v . S

tate , No. 05-07-01476- CR, 2009 Tex . App. L EXI S 673 (Tex. App.—Dallas 3 Februar y 3, 2009) (not designated f or publication). “ In a ll c ri min a l pros e c uti on s, thea c c us e d s ha ll e njo y theri ght t o a

sp e e dy and pu bli c 4 tria l, b y an im pa rtia l jury [.]” U. S. C O N ST . ame nd . 6 . “ Th e ri ght o f t ri a l by jur y sh a ll r e ma in W hi t e s ai d t hathe and a ppel l antpi cked up M r . G oodm an bec aus e he ha d t aken a camer a out of appel l ant ’ s car aft erw as hi ng i t
. M r . G oodm an w entw i t h t hem t o t he 7- E l even, and t hen they w en t bac k to h is ho u se, w h ere ap p ell an t con fro n ted h im ab o u t th e ca m era . M r. G oodm an and a ppel l antfought
. W hi t e deni ed t hat appel l ant t ol d M r . G oodm an t o t ake of f hi s cl ot hes or t hatappel l ants hot at hi m . W hi t e sai d M r . G oodm an j us t m ade i t al l up. T he defe ns e t hen r eca l l ed M r . G oodm an, w ho agai n deni ed t hathe had m ade t he w hol e t hi ng up. T he t r i al j udge found appel l ant gui l t y , and, aft er fi ndi ng t w o pr i or enhanc ement s t r ue
a n d h e a r in g e v id e n c e o f o th e r a c ts o f

m isc o n d u c t, se n ten c e d a p p e llan t to f o rtyy e a rs in pr i s on. A ppel l antt i m el yfi l ed a mot i on fornew t r i al , al legi ng t hathi s j ur yw ai ver“w as nei t herknow i ng nor vol unt ar y ” and r eques t ed a he ar i ng on hi s m ot i on. T he t r i al j udge deni ed t he mot i on w i t hout a hear i ng. A ppel l ant cl ai m ed on appea l t hat t he court err ed in den y i ng his requestt o w i t hd raw his j uryw ai ver and i n d eny i ng his request fora hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on fornew t r i al
. T he cour t of appe al s aff i r m ed. 3 II. A . A trial co u rt d o es n o t ab u se its d iscre ti o n in r efu s in g to a ll o w a d efe n d a n t to w i t hdraw hi s j ury w ai ver abs ent a s how i ng of “no advers e cons equences . ” 1. Jury w aiveran d w i t hd raw als

. A defe ndanthas an abs ol ut e r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al
. A s a m at t erof fe der al cons t i t ut i onal 4Hobbs Pag e 6

inviolate.” T EX . C O N ST . art . I , § 15 & T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 1.12. Gu ille tt v . S

tate , 6 77 S.W. 2d

46 , 4 9 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 84 ) ( “ Th e Court of Ap pe a ls 5 corr ectly noted that, as a

matter of f

eder al constitutional law, the State must establish through the tria l r e c or d a

n e xpre ss, kn ow ing , a

nd int e lli g e nt w a ive r o f j ur

y tria l by a de fe nd ant. ” ); Samudio v. Sta te , 648 S.W .2d 312, 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art . 1 .1 3( a ) ( “ Th e de fe nd ant i n a c ri min a l pros e c uti on

. . . s ha ll 6 have theright, upon enteringa plea , to waive the right of trial by jury , conditioned, howeve r, that such wa iver must be madein person by the def endant in writing in open c ourt with the consent and approval of the c ourt, and the attorney repr esentingthe State.”)
. See Ma rq ue

z v . S tate , 921 S.W .2d 217, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (plurality op.). 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 l aw , t he St at e m us t es t abl i s h, on t he re cor d, a defenda nt ’ s expr es s , know i ng, and i nt el l i gent

w ai verof j ur yt r i al
. A r t i cle 1. 13 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e s et s out t he r equi r ed 5 for m al i t i es of a j ur y - t r i al w ai veri n T exas . B ut once t he defe ndant val i dl yw ai ves hi s r i ght 6
t o a j ur yt r i al , he does not have a n unfet t er ed r i ght t o r eas s ert that ri g h t. Shoul d t he defe ndantw ho w ant s t o w i t hdr aw hi s pr i or w r i t t en w ai ver–and i s s eeki ng t o change t he s t atus quo–have t he b u rde n to s how an “a bs ence of adve r s e cons equenc es ” fr om gr ant i ng t he

w it h d raw al? Y es. H e m u st establish, on the re co rd, th at his req u est t o w it h d raw h is j u ry

7

w a iv e r h a s b e e n m a d e su f f icie n tlyin a d v a n c e o f trial su c h th a t g ra n tin g h is re q u e st w ill n o t: (1 ) in ter f

e r e w it h th e o rd e rlya d m in istra tio n o f th e b u sin e ss o f

th e c o u rt, (2 ) re su lt i n
u n n e c e s s a r y d e la yo r in c o n v e n ien c e to w itn e ss e s, o r (3 ) p re ju d ice th e S tate
. A re q u e st to 8

w it h d raw a jury w aive r i s ad d resse d to th e d iscreti o n o f th e tri al co u rt
. If the d ef en d an t’ s 9 cl ai m s ar e re but t ed by t he S t at e, t he t r i al cour t , or t he re cor d i t s el f, t he t r i al j udge does notHobbs Pag e 7

Id. 10 Hobbs , 2009 Tex. App. L EXI S 673, at *4-5. 11 State’s B rief a

t 10. 12 Hobbs , 2009 Tex. App. L EXI S 673, at *5. 13 36 S.W .3d 211, 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). 14 Id . at 215-16. 15 ab u se h is discreti o n in ref u sing to allow the w it h d raw al of the w aive r. 10 2. App el l an tw as no tenti t l ed to w i t hd raw his j ury w aiver
. A s not ed byt he cour t of appe al s , t hi s r ecor d s how s pot ent i al adver s e cons equenc es if th e trial ju d g e p e rm itt e d a p p e llan t to w ith d ra w h is ju ry w a iv e r a n d c o n tin u e d th e c a se to al l ow for a j ur y t r i al
. A s t he St at e ar gues , “The com pl ai ni ng w i t nes s w as avai l abl e t o t es t i fy 11 th a t d a y , b u t in lig h t o f p e tit io n e r’s th re a ts th e re is n o g u a ra n tee th a t th e c o m p lain a n t w o u ld have r etur ned on anot herdayt o t es t i fy
. ” A ppel l ant fa il ed t o pr es entei t herevi dence or 12

a rg u m e n t to a ss u a g e th is leg iti m a te c o n c e rn . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls

c o rre c tlyf

o u n d th a t a p p e llan t f

a iled to c a rry h is e v id e n tiary b u rd e n ; th u s, th e trial c o u rt d id

n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing ap p ell an t’ s req u est t o w it h d raw h is w aive r. 13 A ppel l antpoi nt s us t o G re e n v . S ta te , in w h ich th e tri al co u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an t’ s 14

m ot i on forcont i nuance fi l ed on t he dayof t r i al but s i m ul t aneous l ydeni ed hi s r eques t for

w i t hdr aw al of t he j ur yw ai ver . T he cour t of appe al s hel d t hat , undert hos e par t i cul ar ci rcum st ances, “i t w as not r easona ble for t he tr i al cou rtt o h ave d e n i ed ap pell ant’ s r equ est t o w i t hdr aw t he j ur yw ai ver . ” T he cour t s t at ed, 15Hobbs Pag e 8

Id. at 215. 16 Id. at 216. 17 Id. 18 See Ma rq ue

z v . S tate , 9 21 S.W. 2d

at 22 3 ( tria l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in 19 ref using w ithdrawa l of jury

waiver wher e def

endant sought the withdrawa l on the day of trial and fa ile d to sh owa

la c k o f a dv e rs e c on se qu e nc e s) ; Tay lor v . S tate , 2 5 5 S. W. 3 d

3 9 9 , 4 0 1
- 0 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 08 , p e t r e f’ d. ) ( tria l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

re fu sin gto p e rm it jury waiver withdrawa l beca

use def endant f ailed to produc e suff

icient fa cts showingthat no adver se conse quence s would result; although there wer e no witnesses who would be inc onve nie nc e d, “ thetria l c ourt sa id t hat to a llo w the wi thd

ra wa l of Ta ylor ’s jur y wa ive r i n th e se c ir c ums tanc e s w ou ld ‘ wr e c k’ thec ourt ’s do c ke t and wo uld int e rf e rewi th t he or de rl y administration of the business of the c ourt”). W hi l e no Texas cour t appea r s t o have confr ont ed t he par t i cul ars cena r i o now befor e us , appel l at e cour t s i n ot herj ur i s di ct i ons h av e found a n abus e of d isc re tio n w h e re th e trial c o u rt g ra n ts a c o n tin u a n c e b u t th e n re f u se s to p e rm it w ith d ra w a l o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s w a iv e r o f

ju rytrial. 16 Si gni fi cant l y , t he cour t of appeal s s t at ed t hat “t her e i s not hi ng i n t he re cor d now befor e us t o r ebutappel l ant ’ s cl ai m s t hatno adver s e cons equenc es w oul d fl ow fr om t he w i t hdr aw al

o f h is w a iv e r.” B e c a u se th e re w a s n o su g g e stio n th a t th e S tate , the trial c o u rt, o r th e p u b lic

17

w oul d s uffe r anyadver s e cons equenc e, t he cour t of appe al s hel d t hatt he t r i al j udge i n G r een ab u sed h is discreti o n in ref u sing to p erm itw it h d raw al of the ju rytr ial w aive r. 18 B ut i n t he p r e s e n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t wi t h d r a wal o f h i s j u r ywai ver
w oul d not caus e anyadver s e cons equenc e. O n t he cont r ar y , appel l ant ’ s j ai l hous e phone 19

conver s at i ons s how ed t hat he w as t r y i ng t o pay off t he compl ai ni ng w i t nes s . H e had not y et
s ucce eded. G r ant i ng hi s r eques t fora cont i nuance and w i t hdr aw al of h is jury -t ri al w ai ver
w o u ld h a v e p e rm itt e d h im to c o n tin u e h is e f f o rts. T h u s, a llo w in g a p p e llan t to w ith d ra w h isHobbs Pag e 9

See Comm onwealth v. W illiams , 553 S.E.2d 760, 765 (Va. 2001) (trial cour t did not 20 abuse its discre tion in denying de fenda nt’s reque st to withdraw jury-trial wa iver whe re prosec utor opposed the r equest be causethe robbe ry victim was leavingthe United States the followingMonday

to return to his native c ountry for thre e months). Sm ith v . S

tate , 286 S.W .3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 21 Id. 22 j ur yt r i al w ai vercoul d have i m peded t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce a s w el l as pr ej udi ced t he St at e. T o fai r l yacc om m odat e al l of t he i nt er es t s ats t ake, t he j udge dec i ded t o s t ar t t he

20 bench t r i al and m emori al i ze t he com pl ai ni ng w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony befor e gr ant i ng a mi d- t r i al

co n ti n u an ce fo r ap p ell an t t o (1) su b p o en a h is cri ti ca l fac t w it n ess a n d (2) rev iew the S tat e’s

r ecor di n g s o f

a p p e l l a n t ’ s t el ephone c onver s at i ons . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he t r i al j udge di d not abus e hi s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng to a l l ow t he w i t hdr aw al of t he j ur yw ai ver , even t h o u g h h e d i d g r a n t t h e m o t i o n f o r c o n t i n u a n c e a f

t e r t h e f i r s t w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y. B . A tr i al court ab u ses i ts d i scret i on i n refusi n g to h av e a h earing o n a p rop e r ly f i l ed and p res ent ed m ot i on f o r n ew t ri al t hat rai s es m at t ers , upon w hi ch rel i ef c oul d be gr ant e d, t hat ar e not de t e r m i nabl e f r om t he r e c or d. 1. N ew t ri al heari ngs. T he purpos es of a ne w t r i al hear i ng ar e ( 1) t o det er m i ne w het her t he cas e s houl d be

r et r i ed or( 2) t o compl et e t he r ecor d for pr es ent i ng i s s ues on appea l
. Such a hea r i ng i s not 21 an abs ol ut e r i ght
. B ut a t r i al j udge abus es hi s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o hol d a hear i ng i f t he 22

m ot i on and ac company i ng aff i davi t s ( 1) r ai s e m at t er s w hi ch ar e notdet er m i nabl e fr om t he

r ecor d and ( 2) es t abl i s h r eas onabl e gr ounds s how i ng t hat t he defe ndant coul d pot ent i al l ybeHobbs Pag e 10

Id. at 338-39. 23 Id. at 339. Re

y es v . S tate , 849 S.W .2d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (“a n 24 unre stric te d r e qu ir e me nt o f a he ari ngon

matte rs no t de te rm ina

blefrom t he re c or d c ou ld l e a d to ‘fishingexpeditions ’”)
. Sm ith , 286 S.W .3d at 339. Of c ourse, the f actua l basis could, as her e, be inc orporated 25 by ref ere nce into the a ffidavit from the body of the motion. Id. 26 W all ac ev . S tate , 1 06 S.W. 3d

10 3, 10 8 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 03 ) ( “ To be su ff ic ie nt t o 27 entitle the def

endant to a he aring , the motion for new trial and ac company ing a ffidavit(s) ‘nee d n o tes t ab l i s ha p ri m a f

ac i e c as e’ fo r an ewtri al
. ”) (qu o t i n g J or da n v . S tate , 883 S.W .2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). 286 S.W .3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 28 e n title d to re lie f
. T h is s e c o n d re q u ir e m e n t lim its a n d p re v e n ts “ f is h in g e x p e d itio n s .” A 23 24

n e w -tria l m o tio n m u st b e su p p o rte d b y a n a f f id a v it s p e c if

ica llyse tti n g o u t th e f

a c tu a l b a sis fort he cl ai m . I f t he af fi davi t i s concl us or y , i s uns upp o rt ed byfac t s , or fai l s t o pr ovi de 25

r equi s i t e not i ce of

t he bas i s fort he r el i ef c l ai m ed, no hear i ng i s r equi r ed. 26 A lth o u g h w e h a v e o f

ten sa id th a t a d e f

e n d a n t n e e d n o t p lea d a p rim a f a c ie c a se in h is

m ot i on for new t r i al , he must atl eas t al l ege s uffi ci entfac t s t hats how r eas onabl e gr ounds 27
t o demonst r at e t hathe coul d pr evai l
. For exampl e, i n Sm ith v . S ta te , w e r ece nt l yhel d t hat 28
t he def endantw as not ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng on hi s cl ai m t hat t r i al couns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve
as s i s t ance –i n fai l i ng bot h t o i nfor m t he def endantof hi s r i ght t o t es t i fyathi s adj udi cat i on h e a ri ng and t o int roduce m edical recor ds i nto evi den ce–b ecause h e fai l ed to est abli sh

r eas onabl e gr ounds t o demonst r at e t hathe coul d m eett he pr ej udi ce pr ong of t he St r i ckl andHobbs Pag e 11

Id. at 345. Se eals o Lucero v. State, 246 S.W .3d 86, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 29 (motions and aff

idavits alleg ing jur

y misconduct in consideringBiblica l scripture during the punishment phase deliber ations did not entitl e the de fenda nt to hearingbeca

use he pr esente d no rea sonable grounds to sug g est that the B ible rea ding a ffe cted the jur y ’s verdict; the “brie f re ading of B iblical scripture , which wa s essentially an admonishment to follow man’s law (and, there fore , duplicated what was alre ady in the court’s c harg e), oc curr ed nea r the be g inning of

jury deliberations. The aff

idavits submit ted clea

rly indicate that the sc ripture ha d no eff ect on the jury ’s verdict rende red some hour s later.” ), cert. de nied, 129 S.Ct . 80 (2008); W allace , 106 S.W .3d at 105-09 (motion and a ffidavits statingthat “two new witnesses havecome f

orwa rd followingthe ar

ticle in the Paris newspa

per r eg ardingthe ca se, who both state that the a ssailant was B illy Ray Wil liams” wer e insuffic ient to warr ant a he aring ; “the strength of the prosec ution’s case was such that the new e videncesug g ested by the af fidavits, even if

true, wa s not compelling e nough to probably bringabout a diff

ere nt result in a new trial”). Sm ith , 286 S.W .3d at 339. 30 Id. at 340. 31 The State a sserts that appe llant failed to pre servehis complaint beca use he f ailed to (1) 32 g ive the trial c ourt ac tual notice that he de sired to havea hea ring , and (2) did not attach a supporting a ffidavit. We agreewith the court of a ppeals’s implicit holding that a ppellant prese rved his complaint. F irst, appellant’s motion for ne w trial ends with the spe cific a nd expli cit reque st “that the Court grant a hearing on this Motion.” Second, a ppellant attac hed a tes t. 29 A ppe l l a t e c o u r t s r e v i e w a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a h e a r i n g o n a mot i o n f o r new t r i al foran abus e of di s cr et i on. A s w e expl ai ned i n Sm ith , 30 O ur r evi ew . . . i s l i m i t ed t o t he t r i al j udge’ s det er m ination o f w het hert he defe ndanthas r ai s ed gr ounds t hatar e bot h undet er m i nabl e fr om t he re cor d and reas on able, m eaning t hey cou l d ent i t l e t he defen dan t t o r el i ef. T his i s becau se t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d i s c r e t i o n e x t e n d s o n l yt o d e c i d i n g wh e t h e r t h e s e t wo r equi r ement s ar e s at i s fi ed. I f t he t r i al j udge fi nds t hat t he def endanthas m et t he cr i t er i a, he has no di s cr et ion t o w i t hhol d a hea r i ng. I n fac t , unders uch ci r cumst ance s t he t r i al j udge abus es hi s di s cre ti o n i n fai l i ng t o hol d a hear i ng. 31 2

. Ap

p e lla n t w a s e n tit ledto a h e a rin g o n h is m o tio n fo r n e w tria l. A p p e lla n t’ s v e ri f

ie d m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l s ta te d , in ter a lia ,

32Hobbs Pag e 12

verific ation aff

idavit to the motion that swea rs to the truth of the state ments made in the motion. See R eye s , 8 49 S.W. 2d

at 81 6 ( mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l mu st b e su

pp or te d b y a ff ida vit sp e c if ic a lly showingthe truth of the grounds alleg ed as a basis for a

new tria l). Some ten day s later the trial judgedenied the motion with a written order. The State re lies on Rozell v. State, 17 6 S. W.3 d 2 28 , 2 31 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 05 ), but in th atc a s e th e d e f

e n d ants i mp l y n e v e r

r e qu e s t e d

a h e ar i n gi nh i s m o t i o n . H e r e , a p p e l l ante x p l i c i t l y reque sted a he aringin his written prayer f or re lief. The State a

rgues that appe llant was re quired to attach a

separ ate order r equestinga hea ring . Although suc h an orde r might be helpful, the la w do e s n ot r e qu ir e it. A s pe c if ic writt e n r e qu e st ( or

an o ra l r e qu e st m a de on

there c or d) wi ll su ff ic e . T he State a lso c ite s J or da n v . S tate , 883 S.W .2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), in which we he ld that the aff

idavit–alleg ing ninealleg ations of ineff ective a ssistance–wa s too vague and conclusory

in nature to wa

rra nt a hea ring
. Id. at 66 5. Th e ve ri fi e d mo tio n in thi s c a se pa int s a complete pictur e: if appe llant’s statements ar e in fa ct true, the y would establish a constitutional violation. The prese nt situation also differs from a third ca se cited by the State, Alc ott

v . S tate , 26 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999), aff’d, 51 S.W .3d 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). There the only verific ation aff

idavit was fr om Alcott’s counsel, who c ould not have per sonal kn ow le dg e of

a ll o f t he fa c ts a lle g e d in

themot ion . H e re , a

pp e lla nt h ims e lf

sw or e un de r o ath t o the truth of the f

acts set out in his motion, facts that wer e within his personal knowle dg e. Th e pa rtie s a gre e that th is i s a

re fe re nc e to A

pril 2 6, 20 07 , th e fi rs t da

y of tria l. 33 O n o r ab o u t Fe b rua ry1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , D ef en d an t w as v isi ted i n jai l b y h is tr ial co u rt at t or neyJ ames Bel t
. T he at t or ney gave t he D efe ndanta document and as ked h im to sig n it w ith o u t e x p lain in g it to h im
. F u rth e r, th e D e f e n d a n t w a s u n a b le t o r ead t he document s i nce he i s i l l i t er at e. T he D efe ndant s i gned i t and hande d i t back t o hi s at t or ney as r eques t ed. A t a l at erm eet i ng, D efe ndant ’ s at t or ney inf o rm ed D ef

en d an t t h at t h e p a p er h e sig n ed w as in fa ct a jury tr ial w aive r. T he D efe ndant i m m edi at el y i ns i s t ed t hatt he at t or neynot fi l e t he w ai verand demanded a j ur yt r ial
. Subse quent l y , ata hea r i ng i n A pr i l 2007, t he 33 D efe ndantr eques t ed thatt he C our t gr anthi m a j ur yt r i al w hi ch w as deni ed.

. . . D efe ndant her eby s peci fi cal l y r eques t s t hatt he C our t gr anta hea r i ng on th is M o tio n in th e in s ta n t c a u s e . . . . O n ap peal, app el l ant ar gu ed that t he tr i al cou rt abu sed i t s d i scr et i on i n den y i ng his request for a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on beca us e hi s as s er t i ons i n t he m ot i on–t hat ( 1) he i s i l l i t er at e, ( 2) hi s couns el di d not expl ai n w hatt he w ai ver w as befor e as ki ng hi m t o s i gn i t , and ( 3) he as ked hi s couns el t o not fi l e t he w ai veronce he l ear ned t he ef fec t of t he w ai ver–w er e “mat t er s notHobbs Pag e 13

Hobbs , 2009 Tex. App. L EXI S 673, at *7. 34 Id. at *8. 35 deter m i nab l e from t he record. ” T he cou rt of app eal s d i sagreed, st at i ng , “T aken al on e, t hese

as s er t i ons m i ght ent i t l e H obbs t o r el i ef, but t aken i n cont extw i t h t he mot i on and s t at e of t he

r ecor d, t heydo not
. ” T he cour t of appe al s expl ai ned, 34 T he mot i on . . . i s s i l entas t o w hatt r ans pi r ed bet w een that “l at erm eet i ng” w hen H obbs i ns i s t ed t he w ai ver not be fi l ed and t he “A pr i l hear i ng”w hen t he w ai verw as fi l ed. H obbs m akes no al l egat i ons t hatcouns el fi l ed t he w ai ver t hatday ag ai ns t hi s w i s hes and t he r ecor d r efl ect s no s urpr i s e t hatt he t r i al w o u ld b e b e f

o re th e c o u rt. In d e e d , alth o u g h a f f o rd e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto addr es s t he cour t t o expl ai n conce r ns he had, H obbs m ade no c l ai m t hathe w as expec t i ng a j ur yt r i al or t hatt he j ur y w ai verw as fi l ed w i t hout hi s cons entor know l edge. 35 B ut as appel l antpoi nt s out , t he t r i al r ecor d does s how s urpr i s e and f ai r l ys ugges t s appel l ant

w a s e x p e c tin g to h a v e a ju rytrial: A p p e llan t: I’m n o t elig ib le f o r n o ju rytrial? C o u rt: Y o u h a v e a lre a d yw a iv e d th a t rig h t. A p p ell an t: I h av e t o fin d m y co u n sel– n ew co u n sel to hav e a j u ry tr ial , w h a t you ’re

s ay i ng? C o u rt: Y o u w a iv e d y o u r rig h t to ju rytrial. A p p e llan t als o p o in ts o u t th a t th e “ sile n c e ” in th e m o tio n o u g h t n o t ex tin g u ish h is

c laim b e c a u se “ th e m o tio n n e e d n o t re f lec t ea c h a n d e v e r y c o m p o n e n t leg a llyre q u ire d to
es t abl i s h r el i ef, r at her , i t m us t m er el yr efl ectt hatr eas onabl e gr ounds exi s t forhol di ng t hatHobbs Pag e 14

Appellant’s B rief at 13. 36 See H ester v. State, 26 7 S. W.3 d 6 23 , 2 39 (Ark . Ct . App . 2 00 7) (t ri a l c ourt ’s de c isi on

to 37 de ny a pp e lla nt’ s w ith dr a

wa l r e qu e st w a s a

bu se of dis c re tio n whe rede fe nd ant w a ive d h is right t o a jury trial and then immediate ly chang ed his mind and dec ided to take his counse l’s adviceand reque st a trial by

jury ; there w as no bad f

aith, no objection from the prosecutor a nd no indication that this would have ca

used any delay , inconvenienc e to witnesses, or pr ejudice to the State)
. Ma rin v . S

tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d

27 5, 27 9 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 93 ) ( “ Som e ri ghts arewi de ly 38 considere d so fundamenta l to the proper f unctioning of

our adjudicatory

proce ss as to enjoy specia l protection in the sy stem. . . . [I ]f a defe ndant wants to re linquish one or more of the m, he must do so ex pressly . His rights to the assistance of counsel a nd to a jury

trial areof this kind. The State may

not succe ssfully

put him to trial without counsel or jury mere ly beca use he voic ed s uch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. ” W e agr ee and add t hatappel l anthad no dut yt o t r yt o r es ci nd 36 hi s w ai verbefor e t he A pr i l hear i ng beca us e i t h ad n o t y et b een fi l ed w i t h t he t r i al j udge. Fur t her , appel l ant ’ s couns el t r i ed t o w i t hdr aw t he j ur y w ai ver as qui ckl y as h e coul d–t he

s ame dayt hati t w as fi l ed, i m m edi at el yaft erhear i ng aboutt he exi s t ence of t he j ai l hous e t ape
re c o rd in g s. F in a lly , ap p e llan t ex p licitlysta ted th a t “a t n o tim e ” d id h e a g re e to w a iv e h is

37

r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al
. T hat “no t i m e” w oul d i ncl ude t he per i od bet w een t he t i m e he s i gned t he

w a iv e r a n d th e tim e c o u n se l f iled it. A p p e llan t is e n tit led to p u t h is s id e o f th e “ ju ryw a iv e r” sto ryo n th e re c o rd . S o is defe ns e couns el
. O nl y t hen can t he t r i al j udge m ake a cr edi bi l i t y and fa ctual det er m i nat i on. T he m ot i on fornew t r i al i n t hi s cas e ( 1) r ai s ed mat t er s t hatar e notdet er m i nabl e fr om t he

r ecor d ( t he par t i cul ar s of pre ci s el y w hat di s cus s i ons t ook pl ace w i t h couns el r egar di ng t he j u ryw ai ver ) and ( 2) es t abl i s hed t he exi s t ence of r eas onabl e gr ounds s how i ng t hatt he d e f e n d a n t co u ld p o ten tiallyb e e n tit led to re lief (th e rig h t to a ju rytrial is a w a iv a b le- o n ly

r i ght
. ) T hi s cas e i s s i m i l art o Ma rtin e z v . S ta te , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hatt he mot i on and

38 39Hobbs Pag e 15

no ob je c tio n to thepr oc e dure . Rathe r, it mus t f ir st o bta in h is p e rm iss ion by e xpre ss waiver –waiver which is not sufficient in conte mplation of the law unless it amounts to the intentional relinquishment or aba ndonment of a known right or privileg e.”) (interna l cites and quotation marks omitted). 74 S.W .3d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 39 Id. at 22 ; see also Ex

parte Dunham , 650 S.W .2d 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) 40 (er roneous leg al advicethat preve nts a defe ndant from makingan informe d and consc ious choice about whethe r to waive his right to a jur y trial constitutes ineffe ctive assistanc e). Com pa reKing v . S

tate , 29 S.W .3d 556, 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (motion for new 41 tria l c onta ine d f

ivea sse rt ion s: “ 1) thejud gme nt i s c ontr ary to t he law a nd e vid e nc e ; 2) theState thr e ate ne d p ro sp e c tiv e wi tne ss, Roy L e e B ir nb a um, wh o h a d p ro mis e d to pr ov idefa vo ra ble te sti mony on a pp e lla nt’ s b e ha lf

, w itha ma jor se nte nc e in a

no the r c a se if

he te sti fi e d; 3 ) t

he State denied a ppellant def

ensive infor

mation by intercepting mail betwe en him and Russell Br ewe r; 4) the State exerted a

n improper influe nce on thejury beca use a Te x as Rang er, who acc ompanied the jury at all times, was in re gular c ommunication with the jurors, and they had grown to like him; and 5) counsel pr ovided ineff ective a ssistance by

failingto investigate appe llant’s asser tions that heha d a

n a lib i de fe ns e and

a wi tne ss who ha d s e e n th at a pp e lla nt h a d b e e n d

ro pp e d o ff

in town on the night of the murder”; noting thepotential for “ fishing e x peditions” and statingthat fac ts failed to establish re asonable grounds for r elief)
. a f f id a v its– sta tin g th a t trial c o u n se l h a d f a iled to tim e lyin f

o rm th e d e f

e n d a n t th a t th e S tate h a d m a d e a “ f

o u r-y e a r-im p riso n m e n t” p lea -b a rg a in o f f e r– w e re su f

f icie n t to w a rra n t a h ea ri n g . T h e m o ti o n fo r n ew tr ial (1) raised m att ers tha t are n o t determ inab le fro m the re co rd ( t he “pa r t i cul ar s of pr eci s el yw hen t he pl ea offer w as convey ed t o defe ns e couns el and t he amount of t i m e i t r emai ned av ail abl e foracc ept ance ”) and ( 2) es t abl i s hed t he exi s t ence of

r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s s h o wi n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l yb e e n t i t l e d t o r el i ef ( “def ens e couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i nfor m t he defe ndant of a pl ea of fercan c ons t i t ut e i neff

ect i ve
as s i s t ance of couns el and w ar r antr ei ns t at eme n t o f the pl ea of fer ”)
. L i ke M ar t i nez, 40

a p p e llan t w a s n o t e n g a g e d in a “ f ish in g e x p e d iti o n .” T h e re is b u t o n e c laim , co u p led w ith 41Hobbs Pag e 16

For a wa iver of a

constitutional right to be va lid the rec ord must show that it was 42 voluntarily

and knowing ly

made. Ro ble

s v . S tate , 577 S.W .2d 699, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). See Patton v. United States , 281 U.S. 276, 313 (1930) (a n eff ective jur y waiver require s an express and intellige nt consent of the de fenda nt). Cf. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 72 S.W .3d 346, 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (wher e def endant 43 alleg es mere ly

that there was no written jury waiver , and does not a lleg e that ther e wa s no jury waiver at all, he a lleg es statutory error subject to har

m analy sis under T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b)). su p p o rt ing fac t s –he di d not i nt ent i onal l yr el i nqui s h hi s r i ght t o a j ur yt r i al
. I f appe l l ant 42 offe r s evi dence t hat he di d not m ake a vol unt ar yand know i ng j ur yw ai verand t he t r i al j udge b e liev e s th a t ev id e n c e , h e h a s es tab lish e d a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n re v iew a b le u n d e r R u le 44. 2( a)
. A ppel l ant ’ s ver i fi ed m ot i on w as s uffi ci ent t o put t he t r i al j udge on n o ti ce that

43

r eas onabl e gr ounds exi s t ed t o bel i eve t hathi s j ur yw ai verm ay not have be en a know i ng, and i nt el l i gentone. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he t r i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng to h o ld a h e a rin g . W e th e re f o re re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a n d re m a n d th is

c a se w ith in stru c tio n s to a b a te th e a p p e a l an d re tu rn th e c a se to th e trial co u rt to c o n d u c t a h e a rin g o n a p p e llan t’s m o tio n f o r n e w trial. D el i ver ed: D ece m ber9, 2009 P ub l i sh