NUMBER 13-17-00462-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG EX PARTE MELY SALDANA On appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria The State appeals the granting of appellee Mely Saldana’s application for writ of habeas corpus. The State contends the habeas court erred by: (1) determining appellee to be actually innocent; (2) declaring appellee not guilty; and (3) granting relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State further argues that the judgment should be reformed as to the fine imposed. We reverse and render judgment denying Saldana’s application for writ of habeas corpus. I. BACKGROUND Saldana was indicted for the offense of injury to a child by omission. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(1), (b)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Saldana failed to appear and a judgment nisi was rendered and a capias was issued for her arrest. Saldana was later taken into custody pursuant to the capias. Saldana entered a plea of guilty as to the lesser included offense of reckless injury to a child, by omission, see id. § 22.04(a)(3), (b)(1), (f), in exchange for the State’s recommendation that her sentence be suspended and she be placed on community supervision. The trial court accepted Saldana’s plea, pronounced sentence, and rendered judgment in accordance with the agreements and stipulations of the parties. Saldana then filed her application for writ of habeas corpus alleging deprivation of her Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel and her right to testify. In her application, Saldana states that she “is not guilty of the alleged offense.” Saldana’s application then details the events and circumstances leading up to her arrest. She states that on the night her son was injured, her estranged husband had been arguing with her son and “pushed [her] son and he fell to the ground, injuring his foot.” She alleges that her husband then threatened her not to tell the police about what had happened. The next day, rather than taking her son to the hospital to assess his injury, she believed it was best to take her son to a “healer” because she was afraid the hospital would call the police. The “healer” massaged his foot in an attempt to alleviate his pain. Saldana’s amended application and her brief in support of her amended application offer contradictory information as to what occurred next. As stated in her amended application, a few weeks after the “healer,” Saldana’s son was brought to the hospital by a concerned neighbor and Saldana was then brought in for questioning by the McAllen Police Department. However, 2 according to her brief in support of the amended application, Saldana claims she brought her son to a doctor the day after the “healer,” but no x-rays were taken. Her brief then goes on to say Saldana was the one who took her son to the hospital six days after the injury and her ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals