Teaching Materials/Case Summary

Transcription

1 Monday, September 24 th, 2012 Rangel v. State, Cause No CR Fifth District Court of Appeals Teaching Materials/Case Summary The Facts.. 2 The Trial Court Proceeding. 2 The Appeal...2 The Attorneys..3 The Oral Argument..3 Fifth District Court of Appeals 3 The Legal Standard..4 The Disputed Issues.4 The Decision and Opinions..5 1

2 The Facts During the early morning hours of April 20, 2009, a four-car caravan drove to Morelia s Restaurant in Dallas, Texas. Among those in the caravan were Santos Lozano, Sr., Santos Lozano, Jr., Daniel Lozano, Antonio Sanchez, and Juan Sarli. As the caravan arrived at Morelia s, Mr. Lozano, Sr. got out of a black Hummer to open the gate to the restaurant s parking lot. As he got out of the Hummer, Mr. Lozano, Sr. heard gun shots. Shooters were firing at the Hummer from inside Morelia s parking lot. Daniel Lozano, Santos Lozano, Jr., and Juan Sarli returned fire. Mr. Lozano, Sr. saw two men dressed all in black and carrying highcaliber rifles running toward the back of the restaurant. Daniel Lozano, Juan Sarli, and Antonio Sanchez were all shot. Antonio Sanchez died from his injuries. Officer Thaddeus Hasse of the Dallas Police Department arrived at the scene shortly after the gun battle began. He was told that two suspects had fled behind Morelia s, and he subsequently saw an individual wearing all black with a black hoodie run in front of some apartments behind the restaurant. Officer Hasse then discovered bloody footprints along a nearby creek. He and another officer followed the footprints and located Jose Rangel behind a pillar underneath a bridge. Mr. Rangel was bleeding from his foot and his head. Officer Hasse followed the blood trail and located a hoodie, gloves, a black hat, and an assault rifle. The blood trail led all the way back to the location where the shooting occurred. The hat, hoodie, and gloves found at the crime scene tested positive for blood, and the DNA matched that of Mr. Rangel. Gunshot residue was also found on Mr. Rangel and the recovered clothing. Mr. Rangel was taken to the hospital where he was treated for a gunshot wound to the right ankle, a dislocated shoulder, and an injury to his forehead. The hospital staff took Mr. Rangel s wallet and then gave it to the police officers who transferred Mr. Rangel to police headquarters for questioning. When Mr. Rangel arrived at police headquarters, he was not under arrest, but he was detained with the possibility of arrest and questioned by the police. Mr. Rangel denied involvement in the shooting. He claimed that he was across the street from Morelia s and that he was there to talk to someone about obtaining a job at a restaurant. The police searched Mr. Rangel s wallet and found a piece of paper that had the name Ruben and a phone number with a 972 area code on it. Detective Eduardo Ibarra questioned Mr. Rangel about Ruben. Following the interrogation, the police arrested Mr. Rangel. Subsequently, the police identified a man named Ruben Galvan as the second suspect in the shooting at Morelia s. The Trial Court Proceeding At trial, Mr. Rangel pled not guilty to the murder of Antonio Sanchez. The trial court jury convicted Mr. Rangel, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Rangel raises two issues. First, he claims that because they searched his wallet without a search warrant, the police violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. 2

3 Constitution. As a result, he claims that the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to use the paper found in his wallet as evidence during the trial. Second, Mr. Rangel appeals the trial court s denial of his motion for a mistrial. Mr. Rangel argues that the prosecution prejudiced and inflamed the jury when, during the closing arguments, the prosecution characterized the shooting at Morelia s as a cartel hit and insinuated that the shooting was related to drug trafficking. Mr. Rangel will ask the appellate court to vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. If Mr. Rangel wins his appeal, the appellate court would void his conviction and he would receive a new trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas will hear the appeal. Because Mr. Rangel is appealing the trial court s decision, he is the Appellant. The State of Texas, which prevailed in the trial court, is the Appellee. After the appeal was filed, Mr. Rangel submitted a legal document called a brief, describing the legal arguments in support of his position. The State also submitted a brief addressing the issues raised by the Appellant. The Attorneys Experienced attorneys represent each party. The attorneys have prepared briefs and will present the parties' arguments to the appellate court. Mr. Rangel, the Appellant, is represented on appeal by Adrienne Dunn. The State of Texas, the Appellee, is represented on appeal by Craig Watkins, Dallas County Criminal District Attorney, and Rebecca Ott, Assistant Criminal District Attorney for Dallas County. The Oral Argument The Fifth District Court of Appeals will hear this appeal on September 24, 2012, at the Belo Mansion in Dallas. The Appellant and the State will each have twenty minutes to address the court. During this time, the attorneys will present their arguments, and the judges will ask questions regarding the case and the applicable law. The Appellant s lawyer will argue first, followed by the State s lawyer. Once the State has concluded its argument, the Appellant s lawyer will have five more minutes for a final rebuttal argument. Fifth District Court of Appeals The Fifth District Court of Appeals is an intermediary court, which hears both civil and criminal cases and has jurisdiction over appeals from both district and county courts located in Dallas, Collin, Grayson, Hunt, Rockwall, and Kaufman Counties. The court consists of a Chief Justice and twelve other judges, all of whom are elected and hold their offices for terms of four years. Ordinarily, three judges will preside over oral arguments. After an oral argument, the judges will review the briefs and the trial court record. After they have fully considered the case, the three judges will vote and decide the outcome of the case. For a panel of three to reach a final decision, two of the three judges must agree. Decisions issued by the Fifth District Court of Appeals can be appealed to either the Texas Supreme Court, which hears only civil cases, or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which hears only criminal cases. To learn more about the 3

4 Fifth District Court of Appeals, visit The Legal Standard The Fifth District Court of Appeals reviews decisions of trial courts. The Court of Appeals does not preside over trials, and no new witnesses or evidence can be introduced during an appeal. The appellate court s role is to review the trial court record to see if any legal errors occurred. The record includes the transcripts from the trial, including the jury selection process, and all evidence that was introduced during the trial. An appellate court generally will accept the trial court s findings of fact but may disagree with the trial court s findings as to the appropriate law to be applied or with the trial court s application of the law to the facts of the case. The Disputed Issues 1. Did the trial court err when it allowed the prosecution to introduce the paper found in Mr. Rangel s wallet as evidence at the trial? The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires that the police obtain a search warrant before conducting a search. But the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions. One exception allows the police to conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest. The search generally is limited to the person arrested and to the area immediately surrounding that person. The Appellant will argue that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his wallet without a search warrant. As a result, the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to introduce the paper found in his wallet as evidence at the trial. The State will argue that Mr. Rangel s wallet was searched incident to an arrest so that the police could conduct the search without a warrant. Although the police searched Appellant s wallet prior to his actual arrest, the State will argue that the search was constitutional as long as the police had probable cause to arrest Mr. Rangel at the time of the search. The State will also argue that the police did in fact have probable cause to arrest Mr. Rangel at the time of the search and could have done so if they had wished to. Additionally, the State will argue that even if the search of Appellant s wallet was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the erroneous admission of the contents of the wallet at trial was harmless. In other words, the State will argue that even without the evidence contained in Appellant s wallet, the jury still had sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of the crime. 2. Did the Trial Court err when it denied Mr. Rangel s motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor characterized the shooting as a cartel hit? The Appellant will argue that during the closing argument, the prosecution made an inflammatory statement that unfairly prejudiced the jury when the prosecution stated that the shooting in this case was a cartel hit. The Appellant will claim that the evidence presented at trial did not establish that Appellant was in a drug cartel. The Appellant will also argue that the 4

5 prosecution s comment was playing on the jury s fears that drug gangs have invaded Dallas. The Appellant will then assert that because of the prosecution s inflammatory remarks, he received a harsher sentence (life imprisonment) than he would have otherwise. As a result, the trial court should have granted Appellant s motion for a mistrial. The State will argue that a mistrial is appropriate only in cases of highly prejudicial and incurable errors, of which this case is not an example. The State will assert that the prosecution s characterization of the shooting as a cartel hit was permissible as a reasonable deduction from the evidence. The State will also argue that even if the appellate court determines that the statement was improper, the misconduct did not deprive the Appellant of a fair and impartial trial. The State will argue that the statement regarding the cartel hit was such a small piece of the closing argument that any resulting prejudice had little or no effect on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the trial judge s instruction to the jury to recall evidence as they heard it was sufficient to correct any error the statement may have created. Finally, the State will argue that the punishment would have been the same without the improper statement. The Decision and the Opinions After the attorneys present their oral arguments, the Fifth District Court of Appeals may take several weeks or months to decide the appeal. The Fifth District Court of Appeals decision and any opinions written by the judges will be made available for review at In addition, the opinions can be accessed using the case number ( CR) at It is also possible to register your address for updates on the cases. To register, go to You will need to register with the court s vnotice! system first and then send s to caseinfo@courtstuff.com with Subscribe CR in the subject lines. For more detailed instructions on this process, go to 5