Ozuna, Joshua James

Citation: Not availableDocket: PD-1355-15

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 27, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Joshua James Ozuna has filed a petition for discretionary review regarding his appeal against the State of Texas, stemming from a prior case adjudicated in the 13th Court of Appeals, Val Verde County, Texas, and originating in the County Court at Law, Kerr County. The trial court, presided over by Honorable Spencer Brown, designated the case number CR14-0258. The petition, submitted by attorney Oscar L. Cantu, Jr., includes a request for oral argument.

The document contains a certificate of parties, listing Joshua James Ozuna as the appellant and the State of Texas as the appellee, along with relevant contact information for both parties and their legal representatives. It outlines the structure of the petition, including sections for the introduction, nature of the case, procedural history, grounds for review, and specific arguments addressing two key issues. 

The index of authorities cites multiple legal precedents and statutes relevant to the case, supporting the arguments presented. The document also includes a prayer for relief, a certificate of service, and an appendix featuring the judgment from the 13th Court of Appeals.

Joshua James Ozuna submits a Petition for Discretionary Review to the Criminal Court of Appeals, challenging a misdemeanor conviction for possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana in a Drug Free Zone. The appeal originates from the County Court at Law of Kerr County, presided over by Judge Spencer Brown, and was reassigned to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction on September 17, 2015, without a motion for rehearing. Ozuna argues that oral argument is essential to clarify allegations and rectify misunderstandings from the lower court's assumptions, which contributed to the appeal.

The appeal primarily contests the denial of a motion for a new trial by operation of law, highlighting a lack of documentation, including no plea, trial, or evidence presented. Key grounds for the review include: (1) conflict with another appellate decision; (2) significant legal questions raised that conflict with state and federal court decisions; and (3) substantial deviation from standard judicial procedures, warranting oversight from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Ozuna critiques the Thirteenth Court's assumption that he entered a plea based solely on the trial court's judgment form, which lacks supporting evidence in the record. He points out that there is no court reporter's record or documentation validating the alleged plea or waiver of rights, placing the burden of proof unfairly on him rather than the State to demonstrate the conviction's validity. The appeal underscores a fundamental dispute about the procedural integrity of the trial and the assumptions made by the appellate court.

The Court highlights that the Clerk’s record does not provide details about the circumstances of the offense, indicating a lack of necessary documentation for the appeal. The Court of Appeals requires the Defendant to address this absence and to explain two main issues: first, the potential impact of having a visible lawyer present to identify fundamental errors; and second, that the complete lack of any documentation or evidence suggests a trial did not occur, which implies that the Defendant did not knowingly waive rights and that denying effective counsel constitutes an abuse of discretion. The existing record from the sentencing hearing is minimal, consisting of only two-and-a-half pages, and does not support the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court argues that the Defendant must demonstrate how having competent counsel would have changed the outcome, diverging from the Strickland v. Washington standard, which assesses whether counsel's performance was below that of a reasonable attorney. The Court of Appeals appears to assume that a trial and a valid waiver occurred despite the lack of proof, leading to a circular reasoning where the Defendant's inability to provide evidence of absence results in the loss of the appeal. The appellate court does not question whether the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding without addressing the Defendant's valid requests for counsel.

The Defendant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his Court Appointed Attorney's failure to file motions, withdraw, present a defense, or object during proceedings. As a result, the Defendant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to jail without a jury trial, admission of guilt, plea agreement, or trial. The Appellant emphasizes that there was a complete absence of advocacy or defense from counsel, which constitutes a significant breach of professional standards. The Court of Appeals noted the record was "silent" regarding the conviction but dismissed the claim, suggesting the Appellant failed to show how a different counsel would have changed the outcome. 

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the Appellant must demonstrate that the attorney's performance was unreasonably deficient and that this deficiency resulted in prejudice, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington. The Appellant argues that the lack of evidence or documentation supporting the conviction undermines the fairness of the trial and that the Court of Appeals wrongfully placed the burden on him to prove the inadequacy of counsel. The only action recorded by the attorney was a request for a pre-sentencing report, which lacks context given the absence of a plea on that date. Overall, the Appellant contends he received an unfair trial due to his attorney's inaction and the absence of any demonstrable legal representation.

Evidence of out-of-county arrests is deemed prejudicial and inadmissible during trial according to Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence 403 and 404(b), supported by Rankin v. State and Smith v. State. Counsel failed to object to the absence of a jury trial waiver, which is a constitutional right under Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 10. Any mention of a waiver during the sentencing hearing must undergo strict scrutiny on appeal. The case John Bustamante Mendez v. The State of Texas establishes that a trial judge must determine a defendant's competency and the voluntariness of a plea, which cannot proceed if these factors are unclear. The court emphasized that a plea other than not guilty cannot be accepted unless the defendant is mentally competent and the plea is free and voluntary. The burden of establishing whether a defendant's waiver is knowing and intelligent rests with the court. The Appellant claimed that a reasonable attorney would recognize the defendant's right to withdraw a plea before judgment, a right supported by Jackson v. State. The record lacks evidence that a jury trial could have yielded a different outcome for the Appellant. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the Appellant's desire not to proceed, which was overruled. Additionally, a conflict arose with a previous ruling concerning the right to a jury trial in a civil case, highlighting that due process, as guaranteed by both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, includes the right to a full and fair hearing, which was violated by the complete denial of the opportunity to present evidence.

The excerpt addresses an appeal concerning the sentencing of Mr. Ozuna for a Class A misdemeanor, specifically the possession of marijuana in a drug-free zone. The appellant argues that there was no trial or opportunity to present a defense, claiming that his appointed counsel's actions or omissions prejudiced him. He contends that the trial court committed clear error by sentencing him without a plea or trial, asserting that the legal requirement for adjudication of guilt was not met according to Texas Penal Code § 12.21, which mandates that a defendant must be adjudged guilty through a proper process. 

However, the court found that the record includes a judgment indicating that Mr. Ozuna pled nolo contendere and was adjudged guilty by the trial court. The judge reviewed a pre-sentence investigation report and found sufficient evidence to proceed with sentencing. The presence of the term "trial" in the judgment was deemed sufficient for the court to conclude that the necessary constitutional rights were satisfied, and thus the appeal was overruled. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.