Peraza v. State

Summary

This document is Osmin Peraza’s Petition for Discretionary Review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. It challenges the First Court of Appeals’ decision affirming convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to permit withdrawal of allegedly coerced guilty pleas. The petition was filed on January 25, 2015, and requests that discretionary review be granted.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peraza's request to withdraw his guilty pleas because the request was made after the pleas had been taken under advisement, the record supported a presumption that the pleas were knowing and voluntary, and Peraza presented no evidence of coercion.
2. The $50 charge for serving a capias had to be deleted from each judgment because the record contained no basis showing that a capias had been issued or served.
3. The portions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 102.020(a)(1) and 102.020(h) requiring collection of the $250 DNA record fee for deposit into the state highway fund and the criminal-justice planning account constituted an unconstitutional tax because the funds were not sufficiently necessary or incidental to the trial of a criminal case.
4. The court did not decide whether the trial court erred by denying hearings on the post-judgment motions because resolution of the sheriff's-fee and DNA-fee issues made it unnecessary to reach that issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Peraza to withdraw his guilty pleas after taking the cases under advisement.
2. Whether the judgments improperly assessed a $50 sheriff's fee for serving a capias without record support.
3. Whether the $250 DNA record fee authorized by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.020 was facially unconstitutional under the separation-of-powers clause of the Texas Constitution.
4. Whether the trial court erred by denying hearings on Peraza's motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment.

Disposition

affirmed