The Cameron County District Attorney’s Office ( CCDAO) has filed an objection to a motion submitted to Cameron County Court at Law 5
Their main objection? They believe there is a time limit to change pleading. Not that the defendant did what he was accused of.
The truth is, there is an expressed obligation with a time limit; however, it does not eliminate a judicial review at a Judge’s discretion, at any time.
Here is their objection, filed in the County Clerk’s Office:
Again, they believe the defendant didn’t state facts for a new trial. Ironically, a new trial was not the only matter requested. Specifically, the defendant never had a trial. People don’t receive trials when they plead “no contest.”
Furthermore, a Judge’s discretion is anytime, not a magic number in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is solely upon the Judge to decide if she would consider changing pleading. If she decides, does she review the case and decide herself, or allow for a trial. Even if a trial was allowed, it would be a Bench Trial and not a Jury Trial.
So, we await the decision of the Judge. If she decides to forego a review then an opportunity to consider a Writ of Habeas Corpus may be available; based upon new evidence. More recently, the CCDAO proved they could serve the Pro Se; something they failed to do many times in pre-trial.
Interestingly enough, if the CCDAO knew they didn’t provide justice, why would they object? Meaning, if they knew the defendant did not do what was claimed, why didn’t they “seek justice?”
Categories: The Field Review - Local