Juan Carlos Renovato-Jauregui v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-322

Filed: Aug. 29, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui appealed his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. His conviction and sentence were for fifteen years imprisonment. Judge Hudson dissented. In this case, Juan Carlos was found guilty by a jury of two serious charges related to violence against another person. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years in prison, but the two charges were merged into one at sentencing. Juan Carlos argued that he did not get a fair trial because he claimed his lawyer did not defend him well and that the prosecutor acted unfairly during the trial. However, the court found that his lawyer did not make any major mistakes that affected the outcome and that the prosecutor's comments were mostly acceptable. Therefore, the court decided to uphold his sentence.

Decision

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced the Appellant?
• Did prosecutorial misconduct deprive the Appellant of a fair trial?

Findings

• the court erred
• the evidence was not sufficient

F-2018-322

Aug. 29, 2019

Juan Carlos Renovato-Jauregui

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Juan Carlos Renovato-Juaregui, Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty of Count 1, assault and battery with intent to kill, in violation of 21 O.S.2011 § 652(C), and Count 2, domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(F), in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-118. The jury assessed punishment at fifteen (15) years imprisonment on Count 1 and three (3) years imprisonment on Count 2. At a separate sentencing proceeding, the Honorable Doug Drummond, District Judge, merged Counts 1 and 2 and sentenced Renovato-Jauregui to fifteen (15) years imprisonment on Count 1, with credit for time served.

Mr. Renovato-Jauregui appeals in the following propositions of error:
1. Appellant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel;
2. Prosecutorial misconduct constituted error and deprived Appellant of a fair trial.

Appellant claims in proposition one that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We review this claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), requiring that Appellant show not only that counsel performed deficiently, but that Appellant was prejudiced by it. In this highly deferential inquiry, evidence of deficient performance must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s actions constituted sound trial strategy. Prejudice to the defense occurs when counsel’s deficient performance creates a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Here, Appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that his two charges were in violation of either double punishment or double jeopardy. Appellant was charged and convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill and domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm. At sentencing, the trial court recognized that the two offenses probably stemmed from one transaction, so it dismissed Count Two. Appellant now claims that the trial of two separate counts prejudiced him before the jury. Indications are that before trial, trial counsel argued that the two counts merged into one. Even so, the same evidence would have been presented to the jury whether one count or two. Appellant cannot show that counsel’s conduct was deficient. Moreover, because the trial court dismissed one of the convictions at the conclusion of the trial, he can show no prejudice. Proposition one is denied.

In proposition two, Appellant claims prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. There was no objection by defense counsel at trial. Instances of misconduct absent an objection are reviewed for plain error only. Appellant must now show that these unpreserved errors were plain or obvious and affected the outcome of the proceeding. The Court will correct plain error only where it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. This Court will not grant relief based on prosecutorial misconduct unless the tactics are so flagrant that the resulting convictions or sentences are fundamentally unfair.

Appellant complains about the prosecutor’s reference to defense counsel’s argument as razzle dazzle. These comments seem similar to the smoke screen comments this Court has condemned in the past. Casting aspersions on defense counsel during argument is improper. When the argument, however, is an attempt to remind the jury to use their common sense, follow the evidence, and focus on the elements, the comments are proper. The comments here were focused on urging the jury to follow the instructions and focus on the elements of the offenses. The comments did not constitute error. Appellant points to a portion of the record where the trial court reminded the prosecution to watch its facial expressions during defense counsel’s questioning. We find that the trial court’s admonition cured any error and Appellant can show no harm here. Proposition two is denied.

DECISION

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Mr. Renovato-Jauregui appeals in the following propositions of error:
2. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for consideration for parole. 22 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(6).
3. 12 O.S.2011, § 2104, (a court may take "notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.").
4. Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, I 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923.
5. Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 30, 876 P.2d 690, 701.
6. Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10, I 18, 421 P.3d 890, 896-97.
7. Hoover U. State, 1987 OK CR 119, 13-14, 738 P.2d 943, 946.
8. Black v. State, 1983 OK CR 60, I 12, 663 P.2d 22, 25.
9. Harris U. State, 2000 OK CR 20, I 37, 13 P.3d 489, 499.
10. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(C) - Assault and battery with intent to kill
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(F) - Domestic assault and battery resulting in great bodily harm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 13.1(6) - Parole eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2104 - Plain error

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
• Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, I 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923
• Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 30, 876 P.2d 690, 701
• Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10, I 18, 421 P.3d 890, 896-97
• Hoover v. State, 1987 OK CR 119, 13-14, 738 P.2d 943, 946
• Black v. State, 1983 OK CR 60, I 12, 663 P.2d 22, 25
• Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, I 37, 13 P.3d 489, 499