Ildefonso S. Martinez v. State

Full text

Opinions in this case

NO. 07-08-0400-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0401-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0402-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0403-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0404-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0405-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0406-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0407-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0408-CR Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NO. 07-08-0409-CRÂ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B Â JANUARY 27, 2009 ______________________________ ILDEFONSO SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellee ______________________________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â NOS. 56,136-C, 57,334-C, 57,335-C, 57,336-C, 57,337-C, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 57,338-C, 57,339-C, 57,340-C, 57,341-C and 57,342-C; Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â HON. ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING _______________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â After a jury trial, appellant Ildefonso Santiago Martinez was convicted of eight counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at life imprisonment for each count of aggravated sexual assault and twenty years imprisonment for each count of indecency with a child with the sentences to run consecutively. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellantâs appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw, together with an Andersâ brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellantâs appeals are without merit. Along with his brief, he has provided a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counselâs belief that there was no reversible error and of appellantâs right to file a response pro se. By letter dated December 12, 2008, this court also notified appellant of his right to file a response by January 12, 2009, if he wished to do so. To date, we have received neither a response nor a request for extension of time to file one. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed various phases of the trial including pre-trial and voir dire, the guilt/innocence phase, the charge conference and the courtâs charge, final arguments on guilt/innocence, and the punishment phase. In doing so, he analyzed why he perceived there to be no reversible error during each phase. He also discussed whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and whether the stacking of appellantâs sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment, but again he concluded there was no reversible error. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counselâs conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Accordingly, the motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Brian Quinn Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice Â Do not publish. generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Italic"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 9 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; color:black;} p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Header Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; color:black;} p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Footer Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; color:black;} p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma; color:black;} p.FreeForm, li.FreeForm, div.FreeForm {mso-style-name:"Free Form"; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black;} span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma; color:black;} span.HeaderChar {mso-style-name:"Header Char"; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Header; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"?????? Pro W3","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; color:black;} span.FooterChar {mso-style-name:"Footer Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Footer; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"?????? Pro W3","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"\30D2\30E9\30AE\30CE\89D2\30B4 Pro W3"; color:black;} span.SpellE {mso-style-name:""; mso-spl-e:yes;} span.GramE {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} /* Page Definitions */ @page {mso-page-border-surround-header:no; mso-page-border-surround-footer:no; mso-footnote-separator:url("07-11-0160.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") fs; mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("07-11-0160.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") fcs; mso-endnote-separator:url("07-11-0160.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") es; mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("07-11-0160.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") ecs;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-title-page:yes; mso-footer:url("07-11-0160.cv%20opinion_files/header.htm") f1; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> NO. 07-11-0160-CV Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â AT AMARILLO Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â PANEL D Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â APRIL 27, 2011 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â EX PARTE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Relator Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Opinion on Original Proceeding ______________________________ Â Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before the court is Barry Dwayne MinnfeeÂs application for a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus.Â Â Though much of it is unintelligible, he does state that he Âis being deprived of liberty of jail time credit proceedings.ÂÂ Thus, we construe the document as implicating the recalculation of his prison term through the application of jail time credit, and in so interpreting the petition, we deny it for the following reasons. Minnfee is not appealing from an order denying him habeas relief.Â Instead, he initiated an original proceeding with us, citing art. 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as authority to do so.Â However, we have no jurisdiction over art. 11.07 proceedings.Â Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2010); see Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.ÂAmarillo 2002, pet. ref'd) (holding that courts of appeal lack the authority to issue original writs of habeas corpus in other than certain civil matters); see also Tex. GovÂt Code Ann. Â§22.221(Vernon 2004) (providing the authority to issue certain writs).Â Â As for mandamus relief, we lack plenary jurisdiction to issue such writs.Â Rather, our authority is restricted to ordering district or county court judges to act or not viz a proceeding before them, Tex. GovÂt Code Ann. Â§22.221(b) (Vernon 2004); In re Hettler, 110 S.W.3d 152, 154 (Tex. App.ÂAmarillo 2003, orig. proceeding), or to protect our jurisdiction.Â Tex. GovÂt Code Ann. Â§22.221(a) (Vernon 2004).Â The latter requires that there be an appeal or like proceeding pending before us involving the relator.Â Lesikar v. Anthony, 750 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex. App.ÂHouston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).Â We do not see where Minnfee is asking us to order either a district or county court judge to do anything.Â Nor do the circumstances described in his petition encompass or implicate an appeal pending on our docket.Â So we lack the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, we deny the petition for either a writ for habeas corpus or mandamus. Â Brian Quinn Chief Justice Â Â Â Â