Posted on 07/17/2003 8:21:19 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Appeals court rules in Venegas' favor
BY LAUREL ALMADA Times staff writer
The Fourth Court of Appeals ordered that a Laredo man charged in a 12-year-old triple ax murder case must be released from custody or have his bond reduced Wednesday.
The published opinion came as a result of Miguel Angel Venegas Jr.'s appeal of a decision rendered by visiting Judge Fred Shannon on March 5.
Despite the order, the prosecution maintains Venegas cannot be released from the Webb County jail until the state has exhausted its appellate resources.
The defendant is charged with three counts of murder and one count of theft stemming from Jan. 18, 1991 incidents that led to the deaths of James D. Smiley, 33, Ruben Martinez Jr., 21, and Daniel Dueñez Jr., 14.
He allegedly used a knife and ax to cause the deaths of Smiley and Martinez, and allegedly used a knife to kill Dueñez.
Venegas is further alleged to have stolen Smiley's 1990 Oldsmobile Toronado the same date.
Venegas' attorneys, Juan Flores and Jose Arce, had argued during a Feb. 20 hearing that Venegas was entitled to be released on a reduced bond since the state was not ready to proceed to trial within 90 days of the date the defendant was detained.
The defendant is currently being held in custody in lieu of a $900,000 bond.
They argued that according to provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, a defendant detained in jail pending trial must be released either on a personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail required if the state is not ready for trial.
First Assistant District Attorney Roberto Balli had argued the state was waiting until Venegas' certification process was completed before presenting the case to a grand jury.
Since Venegas was 16 years old at the time the alleged offenses were committed, he had to be certified to stand trial as an adult.
The defendant was certified three times to stand trial as an adult, but twice the certification secured by the Webb County Attorney's Office was overturned on appeal.
It was not until the Texas Supreme Court issued a mandate denying the defendant a discretionary review of his certification appeal on Feb. 3 that the certification was finalized.
Although Shannon denied Venegas' request, he said he would assist his attorneys in any way he could if they wished to appeal his decision.
The results of the appellate opinion filed by Justice Karen Angelini on Wednesday states that Venegas has the right to be released on a personal recognizance or reduced bond.
The opinion states that although the cited article of the criminal code does not apply to a defendant who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offense while he is serving the sentence, the time Venegas served on an escape charge did not count against the state.
In addition, the defendant was not being detained pending trial for another offense to which the applicable 90-day period had not elapsed, and the defendant was not found incompetent to stand trial, it states.
The higher court's opinion states that according to Venegas, his detention began on Nov. 15, 2002, when he was transferred to the Webb County jail after being released from prison.
The state argued that the 90-day period began on Feb. 6, when the final mandate regarding Venegas' certification was issued.
The court found that the state was not kept from proceeding with the prosecution of Venegas' case, even though the certification was under appeal.
"Therefore, the state could have proceeded with its prosecution of Venegas while Venegas was appealing the certification. Because the state could have proceeded with its prosecution, the 90-day period began to run on Nov. 15, 2002," the opinion states.
Since the 90-day period expired Feb. 13, and Venegas was not indicted until Feb. 25, the trial court has two options - "release Venegas on personal bond or reduce the amount of bail required," it states.
The state had also argued that it announced it was ready to take the case to trial retroactively on March 6, but the higher court found the state could not announce it was ready retroactively because there was no indictment.
"Where there is no indictment, the state cannot announce ready for trial," the opinion states.
Balli said after the opinion was released the state would be filing a re-hearing request with the Fourth Court of Appeals.
"The judge (trial court) can't sign an order to release the defendant until we're done with all of our appellate remedies," he said.
Balli said he indicted the case three weeks after the mandate from the higher court regarding Venegas' certification process was released.
"It would be not only a waste of resources, but we could go forward, get a conviction then if the certification were overturned, we would have to start over. If we got a not guilty verdict, we would be precluded from going forward," he said.
"We've done a good job, and pursued this in the best manner we could, and we're still moving forward," Balli said, adding that the criminal case against Venegas would continue as planned regardless of the results of the bond issue.
"We've done our job. He's not out and can't be released until all of our remedies are settled," he said.
District Attorney Joe Rubio declined to comment on the issue.
Neither of Venegas' attorneys returned phone calls as of Wednesday evening.
Venegas is currently slated to stand trial Sept. 8 for the offenses.
Another pre-trial hearing is scheduled for July 24.
(Times staff writer Laurel Almada can be reached at 728-2564 or e-mailed at laurel@lmtonline.com.)
07/17/03
Not related, but Ballis is the chairman of the Webb County Democrat Party. He is a vocal opponent of congressional redistricting.
He screwed up and I hope it gets a lot of press at election time, especially if this scumbag skips to Mexico.
SO9
Since the 90-day period expired Feb. 13, and Venegas was not indicted until Feb. 25, the trial court has two options - "release Venegas on personal bond or reduce the amount of bail required," it states
No problem. Bail - $899,999. Sue us again, jerk!
except in America.
Fair enough. The law is the law. Release him into Justice Karen Angelini's house.
And give him a free axe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.