ROMERO, LUIS MORON v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: PD-1078-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-1078-24

LUIS MORON ROMERO, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Appellant confessed to the murder of Maria Marquez in an interview with police.

After he confessed, he consented to giving a buccal swab for the collection of DNA

evidence. At the guilt/innocence phase of trial for murder, appellant objected to the

buccal swab evidence and to a report in which his DNA was linked to evidence recovered

in Marquez’s murder on the ground that his consent to the buccal swab had been

involuntary. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. The jury

found appellant guilty of Marquez’s murder. LUIS MORON ROMERO – 2

During the punishment phase, the State presented evidence that appellant had

murdered Guillermo Gonzalez about two years before Marquez’s murder. A State’s

witness testified that appellant’s buccal sample, collected in connection with the Marquez

case, was provided to the police department working on the Gonzalez case. The State

offered several DNA reports related to the Gonzalez murder, including two reports which

compared samples of appellant’s DNA (as derived from his buccal swabs) to DNA

evidence collected in the Gonzalez case. Defense counsel stated that she had “no

objections” to these reports. The State’s witness then testified that there was a high

probability that appellant’s DNA matched the DNA associated with the Gonzalez murder.

The jury sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and assessed a $10,000 fine.

On appeal, appellant claimed that the trial court erred in admitting his buccal

swabs and the DNA analysis results because he did not voluntarily consent to police

collecting his DNA. The court of appeals agreed and held that the State did not meet its

burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellant’s consent to obtain his

DNA had been voluntary. Romero v. State, No. 01-22-00639, slip op. at 30-32 (Tex.

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Aug 29, 2024)(not designated for publication). Appellant also

contended that he was harmed by the DNA evidence at the sentencing phase. The court of

appeals agreed and held that it could “not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did

not contribute to appellant’s punishment.” Id. at 37-38.

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the court of LUIS MORON ROMERO – 3

appeals’ holding in part on the ground that it failed to address preservation of error

relating to the admission of the DNA evidence offered at the punishment phase. Issues of

procedural default are systemic and must be reviewed by the courts of appeals, even when

the issue is not raised by the parties.1 Gipson v. State, 383 S.W.3d 152, 159 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). “An appellate court ‘may not reverse a judgment of conviction without first

addressing any issue of error preservation.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Meadoux

v. State, 352 S.W.3d 189, 193 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).

We therefore grant grounds (1) and (2) of the State’s petition for discretionary

review, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this case to that court for

proceedings consistent with this opinion.2

DELIVERED March 26, 2025 DO NOT PUBLISH

1 The State raised preservation in a motion for rehearing in the court of appeals. The court denied the motion. 2 We refuse without prejudice ground (3), challenging the court of appeals’ holding that appellant’s consent to the buccal swab was involuntary.