Opinion ID: 59634
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence from the Prado Residence

Text: As previously set forth, Carolina Prado’s sister, Rosemary Ramirez, discovered a gym bag in a storage shed at the Prado residence. After determining that the bag belonged to Martinez, Ramirez turned the bag over to the police. The bag contained pornographic magazines. The actual magazines were not admitted into evidence at either phase of the trial. However, during the punishment phase, Martinez admitted on cross-examination that the magazines belonged to him. On direct appeal, Martinez argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the denial of the motion to suppress the magazines. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that because Martinez had abandoned that property, 21 No. 06-70021 he had no standing to challenge the search and seizure of the magazines. The evidence shows that Martinez left Prado’s residence in the early morning hours on July 11, and was arrested while staying at his grandmother’s two days later. Martinez points to no evidence to indicate that he intended to retrieve his bag. Under these circumstances, Martinez has not shown that he did not abandon the bag. See United States v. Piaget, 915 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Once a bag has been abandoned, and the abandonment is not a product of improper police conduct, the defendant cannot challenge the subsequent search of the bag.”). Thus, it does not appear that counsel’s performance was deficient. Assuming arguendo that Martinez made a substantial showing on the first Strickland prong, he cannot make a substantial showing of prejudice. As stated, Martinez’s admission that the magazines were his occurred during the punishment phase. To demonstrate prejudice, Martinez points to: (1) the State psychologist’s reference to Martinez’s interest in pornography in the context of making a “future dangerousness” determination; and (2) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument that Martinez was a sexual deviate who collects pornography. Although we acknowledge that the evidence of Martinez’s ownership of pornographic magazines could be viewed as aggravating by the jury, we are persuaded that such evidence does not rise to a substantial showing of prejudice in view of all the evidence, including: (1) Martinez’s prior guilty plea to attempted sexual assault; (2) the assault victim’s testimony regarding the specifics of the attempted sexual assault; (3) eleven year-old Belinda’s testimony that Martinez sexually molested her after the murders; (4) Martinez’s prior burglary convictions; and (5) Martinez’s unremorseful testimony during the punishment phase.