Vasquez, Richard

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 20, 2015·No. WR-59,201-03·Published

Opinion

WR 59,201-03 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/20/2015 12:00:00 AM Accepted 4/20/2015 8:11:52 AM ABEL ACOSTA WR 59,201-03 CLERK

RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EX PARTE RICHARD VASQUEZ 4/20/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK

***

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 148TH DISTRICT NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

Returnable to

THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS ABUSIVE SUBSEQUENT 11.071 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DENY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION

Douglas K. Norman State Bar No. 15078900 Assistant District Attorney 105th Judicial District of Texas 901 Leopard, Room 206 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 (361) 888-0410 (361) 888-0399 (fax) douglas.norman@co.nueces.tx.us

Attorney for the State

1 WR-59,201-03

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § 148TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § RICHARD VASQUEZ § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through its Assistant District

Attorney for the 105th Judicial District of Texas, and pursuant to Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure arts. 11.071 and 11.073, files this motion to dismiss

as abusive the present subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus and

to deny the motion to stay execution.

EXPLANATION FOR UNTIMELY PLEADING

The State is cognizant of this Court’s “Miscellaneous Rule 11-003"

pertaining to procedures in death penalty cases involving requests for stay of

execution and related filings, and if it applies to responsive pleadings such as

this motion to dismiss Applicant’s subsequent application for writ of habeas

corpus, the State offers this explanation for filing its motion less than seven

days before the date of Applicant’s execution:

Applicant’s execution is scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 2015.

Applicant did not file his motion for stay of execution and his subsequent

application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus until late in the

2 afternoon of Wednesday, April 15, 2015, the last day permitted for such

filings pursuant to this Court’s “Miscellaneous Rule 11-003.”

Consequently, it was impossible for the State to read and file a response to

the 92-page application and exhibits attached thereto prior to the expiration

of the deadline for a timely filing in this case. The State has worked

diligently to prepare such response and is filing this, its motion to dismiss

Applicant’s subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus as quickly as it

can.

The State prays that this Court deem such circumstances as good

cause for the untimely filing of this motion, if in fact this motion is

considered a “pleading requesting affirmative relief in an impending

execution case” under Miscellaneous Rule 11-003, and if in fact that rule

applies to responsive pleadings such as this motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State relies on this Court’s own knowledge of the facts of the case

as set forth in its opinion on the direct appeal. In addition, the State would

point this court to the following testimony that it believes to be particularly

relevant to the present claims being made.

Deputy Constable Eric Giannamore, the first person to arrive at the

scene, asked Vasquez what had happened. Vasquez replied that Miranda was

3 brushing her teeth in a hall bathroom and fell off a wooden stool, hitting her

head. Giannamore testified, however, that there was no wooden stool in the

area. (R.R. XXXIV - 19-21, 74-77; XLI - State's Exh. 37).

Emergency medical technician Eugenio Rangel asked what had

happened and Vasquez replied that Miranda had fallen off a stool in the

bathroom while brushing her teeth. While Vasquez kind of pointed when he

said this, Rangel never saw a stool in the area. (R.R. XXXV - 76-78, 83, 85,

101, 108). As the paramedics cut Miranda's clothes off and turned her in

order to place her on a back board, noticeable bruising of various stages was

apparent down her back, as well as on her legs and arms. Miranda also had a

bump on the back of her head and bruising around her eyes. There was no

sign of toothpaste in Miranda's mouth. (R.R. XXXIV - 21-22; XXXV - 78-

82, 85-87, 93-98, 101-102, 108-112; XLI - State's Exh. 37-39).

Dr. Michael Burke, a pediatric neurosurgeon, testified that Miranda

had multiple bruises on her body. (R.R. XXXV - 95; XXXVI - 69-89; XLII -

State's Exh. 60-63; C.R. I - 38-39, 51-53, 56-61, 69-71, 156-158). Burke

said that her subdural hematoma was caused by trauma to the head and that

Miranda's brain injuries were the equivalent to those she would have

sustained had she been ejected from a car traveling 65 m.p.h. Miranda's

injuries were consistent with being struck multiple times in the head. Burke

4 said his final diagnosis was severe brain injury from child abuse. He

described this as a massive injury and summarized Miranda's condition by

saying, "This child got the living daylights beat out of her to the point that

she quit breathing and there was nothing that could be done at that point."

(R.R. XXXVI - 78-79, 87, 91-94). Dr. Burke used his car accident and

Shaken Baby Syndrome comments only as analogies to attempt to explain

the force of the direct impact injuries in the present case and the lack of

external signs, and he never testified or implied that Miranda had been in a

car accident or that she had Shaken Baby Syndrome. (R.R. XXXVI - 92-

93).

Leann Box, a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) at the hospital,

testified that Miranda had extensive bruising in various stages of healing all

over her body--head, face, chest, pelvic region, genitalia area, ankle, thigh,

shoulder, back, and arms--and described each of those bruises. (R.R. XXXV

- 175-185, 208-211; XLI - State's Exh. 46-48; C.R. I - 23, 27, 75-83, 175).

There were multiple abrasions and tears on her labia majora, fossa, labia

minora, fourchette, perineum, and anal area. Many were oozing tears, which

meant they were fresh enough that they had not begun to scab, which

generally started to occur within a few hours of injury. One such injury

would have probably bled a great deal. Because very little blood was present

5 in the area when the examination took place, Box assumed it had been

cleaned up. (R.R. XXXV - 185-197, 205-208, 211-215; XLII - State's Exh.

49-57; C.R. I - 18-21, 42, 50, 54-55, 72). The bruising on Miranda's hips

was very consistent with injuries that could be caused by being held from

behind while being sexually assaulted. The injuries to Miranda's genital-anal

area were not consistent with a straddle injury. Rather, they were extremely

consistent with someone or something passing over the area below the anus,

tearing the top of the skin, skidding over the anus, and ripping apart the skin

at the perineum. In over 200 sexual assault examinations, this was the first

time Box had seen a complete full thickness tear at the perineum. (R.R.

XXXV - 177, 197-200).

In his formal statement to the police, Vasquez said that he had

repeatedly asked Miranda why she always acted scared of him. She kept

saying she was not scared of him until Vasquez "got pissed off" and pushed

her. When she still replied that she was not scared of him, Vasquez told her

to stop lying and hit her in the head. She did not fall down because he was

holding her with his other hand. He hit her several more times. She just

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Vasquez, Richard, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Vasquez, Richard (Vasquez, Richard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robbins v. State
717 S.W.2d 348 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Jacob Scott Turner v. State
435 S.W.3d 280 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)