From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rivasmeza

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 6, 2017
No. 05-16-01192-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2017)

Opinion

No. 05-16-01192-CR No. 05-16-01193-CR No. 05-16-01194-CR No. 05-16-01195-CR

06-06-2017

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. JUAN JOSE RIVASMEZA, JR., Appellee


On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1647109-P , F-1647515-P, F-1647516-P, F-1647517-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Lang

Appellee Juan Jose Rivasmeza Jr. entered negotiated pleas of guilty in each of the four cases described above. On August 22, 2016, pursuant to the plea agreements in those cases, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt in each case and placed appellee on deferred adjudication probation for three years. On September 22, 2016, appellee filed identical motions for new trial in all four cases. Those four motions were granted by the trial court without a hearing.

Appellee's last name is spelled in various ways throughout the appellate record, including "Rivas Meza" and "Rivas-Meza." Because the indictments and the trial court's orders of deferred adjudication use the spelling "Rivasmeza," we use that spelling in this opinion. See Meuret v. State, 500 S.W.3d 539, 541 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.); Queunay v. State, No. 05-14-01390-CR, 2015 WL 3871971, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 23, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

In this consolidated appeal, appellant The State of Texas presents a single issue in which it contends the trial court erred by granting appellee's motions for new trial because (1) a motion for new trial is not available when deferred adjudication is granted, (2) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on appellee's motions because the motions were untimely filed, and (3) there was no evidence to support appellee's motions.

No brief has been filed by appellee in this Court.

We decide in favor of the State on its issue. We reverse the trial court's orders granting the motions for new trial in all four cases in question and remand those cases to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. GRANTING OF APPELLEE'S MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL

Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the basic reasons for this Court's decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. We note that the record on appeal shows the trial court appointed new counsel for appellee on September 22, 2016, and the motions for new trial in question were filed on that same date by appellee's newly appointed counsel. However, the trial court's four orders in question each bear a handwritten date of "9/20/2016" directly underneath the trial judge's signature. Because this Court's determination of the State's issue does not require us to reach the question of timeliness of appellee's motions for new trial, we need not address that discrepancy.

A. Standard of Review

The standard of review when a trial court grants a motion for a new trial is abuse of discretion. State v. Thomas, 428 S.W.3d 99, 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The test for abuse of discretion is not whether, in the opinion of the appellate court, the facts present an appropriate case for the trial court's action, but rather, "whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Id.

B. Applicable Law

Article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides in part that "when in the judge's opinion the best interest of society and the defendant will be served, the judge may, after receiving a plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere, hearing the evidence, and finding that it substantiates the defendant's guilt, defer further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and place the defendant on community supervision." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (West Supp. 2016).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 is titled "New Trials in Criminal Cases." TEX. R. APP. P. 21. Rule 21.1 defines "new trial" as "the rehearing of a criminal action after the trial court has, on the defendant's motion, set aside a finding or verdict of guilt." TEX. R. APP. P. 21.1. Several sources make clear that a "verdict of guilt" is a jury's assessment of guilt in a jury trial, while a "finding of guilt" is a judge's assessment of guilt in a bench trial. Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 635 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). "When adjudication is deferred, there is no 'finding or verdict of guilt.'" Id. at 636. "Because there is no finding or verdict of guilt, there is nothing that can be set aside so as to create an occasion for implementation of Rule 21." Id.

Pursuant to article 44.01(a)(3) of the code of criminal procedure, the State is entitled to appeal an order granting a new trial in a criminal case. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(a)(3) (West Supp. 2016); see also TEX. CONST. ANN. art. V, § 26 ("The State is entitled to appeal in criminal cases, as authorized by general law.").

C. Application of Law to Facts

In its issue, the State asserts in part that the trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for new trial because a new trial is not available when deferred adjudication is granted. As described above, the record shows that on August 22, 2016, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt in each case in question and placed appellee on deferred adjudication probation for three years. Because the trial court deferred adjudication, there was no finding or verdict of guilt respecting those offenses. See Donovan, 68 S.W.3d at 636. Absent a finding or verdict of guilt, there was nothing for the trial court to set aside and rule 21 does not apply. See id. Therefore, we conclude the trial court was without authority to grant appellee's motions for new trial. See id. at 638.

We decide in favor of the State on the portion of its issue respecting whether a new trial is available when deferred adjudication is granted. We need not address the remaining portions of that issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

II. CONCLUSION

We decide the State's sole issue in its favor. We reverse the trial court's orders granting appellee's motions for new trial in all four cases in question and remand those cases to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE Do Not publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2
161192F.U05

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1647109-P.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court's order granting appellee Juan Jose Rivasmeza, Jr.'s motion for new trial and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2017.

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1647515-P.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court's order granting appellee Juan Jose Rivasmeza, Jr.'s motion for new trial and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2017.

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1647516-P.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court's order granting appellee Juan Jose Rivasmeza, Jr.'s motion for new trial and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2017.

JUDGMENT

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1647517-P.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court's order granting appellee Juan Jose Rivasmeza, Jr.'s motion for new trial and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2017.


Summaries of

State v. Rivasmeza

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 6, 2017
No. 05-16-01192-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2017)
Case details for

State v. Rivasmeza

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. JUAN JOSE RIVASMEZA, JR., Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Jun 6, 2017

Citations

No. 05-16-01192-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2017)