TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00122-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Gloria Elizabeth Romero-Perez, Appellee FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2016-659, THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION The State of Texas appeals from the district court’s order granting the motion for new trial filed by appellee Gloria Elizabeth Romero-Perez, who was convicted of the offense of continuous trafficking of persons and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code § 20A.03. In two points of error on appeal, the State argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial and, in the alternative, abused its discretion in granting Romero- Perez a new trial. Although we disagree with the State’s assertion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial, we agree that in this case and on this record, the district court should have denied Romero-Perez’s motion for new trial. Accordingly, we will reverse the district court’s order. BACKGROUND In a two-count indictment, the State charged Romero-Perez with the offenses of continuous trafficking of persons and sale or purchase of a child. Both offenses involved Romero-Perez’s niece, A.L. (the child), who was fifteen years old at the time of the alleged offenses. Based on the evidence presented at trial, which we discuss in detail below, a jury convicted Romero-Perez of the trafficking offense but acquitted her of the offense of sale or purchase of a child. The jury then assessed punishment at 25 years’ imprisonment. At the conclusion of trial, the district court forgot to impose Romero-Perez’s sentence in open court, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.03, § 1, and neither party noticed the oversight at that time. This resulted in a complicated post-trial procedural history, summarized in previous orders of this Court, 1 that included abating the appeal and remanding the case to the district court on four occasions, first for imposition of sentence and later for a hearing on a bill of exception filed by the State. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.2. Additionally, Romero-Perez filed and the district court granted two motions for new trial, before and after imposition of sentence. See id. 21.4(a), 21.8(a) (providing that deadlines for filing and ruling upon motion for new trial are calculated based on date after which trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court). However, at the hearing on the State’s bill of exception, the parties agreed to proceed only on the 1 See State v. Romero-Perez, No. 03-18-00122-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3102 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 18, 2019) (per curiam order) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 545 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 29, 2019) (per curiam order) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 8149 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2018) (per curiam order) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4149 (Tex. App.—Austin June 8, 2018) (per curiam order) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 district court’s order ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals