Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hector Deleon Montes v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-07-00263-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 19, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Hector Deleon Montes was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (200-400 grams) and received a 25-year prison sentence and a $15,000 fine. Montes appealed, raising two issues: the exclusion of certain evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. In the first issue, Montes contested the trial court's exclusion of evidence related to his son’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine and that his son had driven Montes' vehicle before the arrest. Montes argued the exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a defense and Texas Rule of Evidence 403, but he only raised relevance at trial. The court noted that without additional evidence linking the son to the crime, the trial court acted within its discretion to exclude this evidence, as it only demonstrated opportunity without incriminating the son. Furthermore, Montes did not preserve the constitutional argument for appeal. Thus, this issue was overruled. In the second issue, Montes claimed his trial counsel was ineffective during the punishment phase for two specific questions posed to witnesses. To prove ineffective assistance, Montes needed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was below an acceptable standard and that this affected the trial's outcome. The court found that Montes did not file a motion for new trial, and there was no evidence of trial counsel’s strategy regarding the questioned inquiries. Without a clear indication that no conceivable strategy existed, the court could not conclude that the counsel's performance was deficient. Therefore, this issue was also overruled. Ultimately, the court affirmed the conviction, and the previous judgment remained unchanged. The panel included Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.