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.
David Herrera Barrera v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-09-00221-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 22, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David Herrera Barrera, the appellant, was indicted for aggravated assault against a public servant, a first-degree felony, and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that recommended seven years of deferred-adjudication community supervision, a $2,000 fine, and community service requirements. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt citing multiple violations of community supervision, including new criminal offenses, failure to report to his officer, and noncompliance with various conditions of his supervision. During the hearing, Barrera admitted to some allegations but denied others. The trial court found several allegations true, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment along with the fine. Barrera raised two issues on appeal, claiming a denial of due process and ineffective assistance of counsel. In addressing the due process claim, he argued that his trial counsel did not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for aggravated assault and the deadly weapon finding, asserting that this constituted a violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing relevant case law, the court noted that to prove ineffective assistance, Barrera must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced his defense, following the standards set in Strickland v. Washington. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The defendant must establish a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed if not for counsel's professional errors. This presumption of effective assistance can be overcome if the issues not raised on appeal are significantly stronger than those presented. In Texas, the Constitution does not mandate evidence to support a guilty plea, as per Menefee v. State. However, Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires sufficient evidence for felony convictions based on guilty pleas. Evidence to support a guilty plea can include testimonial or documentary evidence, or an oral or written stipulation that covers all elements of the charged offense. A judicial confession covering all necessary elements is also adequate. In terms of the specific offense of aggravated assault against a public servant, it is defined as intentionally or knowingly threatening another with imminent bodily injury while using a deadly weapon, and knowing that the victim is a public servant performing official duties. The indictment in this case alleges that the defendant threatened Officer Gregory Loter with a knife while he was lawfully discharging his duties. During the hearing where appellant David Herrera Barrera pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against a public servant, no written evidence or judicial confession was presented by the State. However, an oral stipulation was made, where the prosecutor outlined the evidence that would be presented if a witness were to testify, detailing that Barrera threatened police officer Gregory Loter with a knife while knowing Loter was performing his official duties. Barrera agreed to this stipulation, as did his defense counsel, indicating that the stipulation encompassed all necessary elements of the offense. This oral agreement was deemed sufficient to support the guilty plea. Barrera argued that his plea was involuntary and made under duress, claiming his counsel indicated he would be convicted if he went to trial. The record, however, did not substantiate this claim, and it was noted that any assertion of ineffective assistance must be clearly supported by the record. Consequently, the court ruled that Barrera failed to meet the criteria for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel as outlined in Strickland v. Washington. In a second issue, Barrera contended that he received ineffective assistance because the original plea, which placed him on community supervision, was defective, arguing this should invalidate the revocation hearing. However, he provided no substantial argument or legal support for this claim, leading to the conclusion that it was inadequately briefed and thus waived. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.