Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant’s son Michael Rodriguez was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, which he was serving at the maximum security Connally Unit prison in Kennedy. On one Sunday while appellant was visiting him in prison, Michael told appellant that a guard was going to help him escape and give him a ride to the nearby Wal-Mart. Michael asked appellant if he would help him flee by getting him a car and leaving it in the Wal-Mart parking lot on Tuesday morning. Appellant said that if he could he would get a car and leave it in the parking lot with a red bow in the dashboard and the key in the muffler. When appellant left the prison that day, he went to the convenience store he owned and went through the classified section of the newspaper looking for a car to buy. He found a Suburban for sale for $3,700 and cut out the advertisement. The next day, appellant gave the newspaper clipping and $4,000 to his friend Patsy Gomez and asked her to go buy the car for him. Gomez purchased the car that evening. The following morning, she went to appellant’s convenience store, and appellant told her that his friend Ernesto Perez was going to take the Suburban to the Wal-Mart in Kennedy and Gomez was to follow Ernesto and bring him back to San Antonio in her car. Perez believed that they were taking the Suburban to Kennedy to meet someone who wanted to purchase the car from Gomez and was not informed of the plan to leave it there for Michael. Appellant gave Gomez a red bow to place in the dashboard so that his son could identify the car and gave her a magnetic key holder to use to hide the key in the muffler. He also gave her a bag containing $300 and instructed her to place the cash and the title to the car under the floor mat. On Dec. 13, 2000, Michael and six other inmates escaped from prison by assaulting multiple guards, threatening them with shanks, tying them up, stealing their clothes and stealing 14 pistols and one shotgun from the prison armory before fleeing in a state pickup truck. The inmates drove to the Wal-Mart where they abandoned the state pickup truck and found the Suburban furnished by appellant. The escapees committed several crimes over the next month, including multiple armed robberies and the murder of a police officer, before being apprehended in Colorado. After the escapees were arrested, investigators learned of appellant’s role in the escape. Appellant pled guilty to two charges, second-degree felony escape and third-degree felony of providing implements for escape, and elected to have a jury determine his sentence. At the punishment phase of his trial, the state offered evidence relating to the crimes committed by the escapees as well as the penitentiary packets of the escapees, which described their criminal histories, including the crimes for which they were incarcerated. The trial court refused to give the instruction offered by the defense and, instead, gave its own instruction that the jury could not consider the other crimes evidence unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Raul Rodriguez “intended that such bad acts or offenses would be committed by the other persons, or that he should reasonably have anticipated that such bad acts or offenses would be committed by the other persons.” Appellant asked the jury to consider his application for probation, but instead the jury sentenced him to 10 years for escape and 5 years for providing implements for escape, as well as a fine of $10,000 for each of the convictions. Appellant appealed. He claimed that the evidence admitted at his sentencing hearing was irrelevant, was substantially more prejudicial than probative and violated the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court of appeals held that the trial court could reasonably determine that the evidence showed appellant’s character and moral blameworthiness and therefore, was helpful to the jury in deciding the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court determined that the proper review is whether the trial court abused its discretion and held that the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence over appellant’s objections under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 was not outside the zone of reasonable agreement. Finally, the court held that the admission of the evidence did not deny appellant a fair trial. HOLDING:Affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) stated in determining appellant’s moral blameworthiness that a jury reasonably may consider the offenses that occurred as a result of appellant’s conduct of aiding in the escape, even though appellant was not present at the crimes. The evidence of extraneous crimes committed by others, the CCA stated, was relevant to appellant’s sentencing. The CCA also found that trial court did not err in finding the evidence’s probative value did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. The court stated that appellant was mistaken in his belief that he is being punished for crimes committed by others. Rather, the court stated, a jury considered evidence of the circumstances surrounding the charged offenses and sentenced appellant within the penalty range allowed by statute for the crimes for which he pled guilty. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Womack, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, J.J., joined. Hervey, J., did not participate. CONCURRENCE:Johnson, J., concurred.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.