Background
Erica Monique Jenkins pleaded guilty to two counts of assault of a peace officer. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on community supervision for five years. After the State filed an amended motion to proceed with adjudication, the court adjudicated Jenkins guilty and imposed concurrent 20-year prison sentences.
Before trial, Jenkins underwent a competency evaluation that diagnosed her with a mild intellectual developmental disorder but found her competent to stand trial. She later sought a new trial based on school records and a post-trial intelligence test that she argued indicated a potentially moderate-to-severe intellectual disability. She also claimed that adjudicating her guilty and imposing the sentences violated federal and state constitutional protections for due process and against cruel and unusual punishment. Her motion was denied by operation of law.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals held that Jenkins did not establish entitlement to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. She did not show that the school records were unknown or unavailable at the adjudication hearing, that her failure to discover them was consistent with due diligence, or that the post-trial intelligence test could not have been administered before the hearing. Because she failed the first two requirements governing newly discovered evidence, the court did not address the remaining requirements.
The court held that Jenkins inadequately briefed her constitutional claims because she cited no authority establishing that intellectual disability alone makes a conviction or prison sentence unconstitutional. The decision she relied on involved a defendant whom experts found incompetent, whereas Jenkins had been found competent. The court also held that Jenkins was not entitled to a hearing on her new-trial motion because claims depending on matters outside the record required a supporting affidavit specifically establishing their factual basis, and the copy-authentication affidavits she submitted were insufficient. The court therefore affirmed both judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show both that the evidence was previously unavailable and that its earlier absence was not caused by a lack of due diligence.
- Intellectual disability, without supporting authority and a developed legal argument, does not by itself preserve due-process or cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims for appellate review.
- A motion for new trial relying on facts outside the record must include an affidavit specifically establishing the claims’ factual basis to require a hearing; affidavits merely authenticating attached records are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the procedural demands governing Texas motions for new trial. Evidence obtained after trial is not necessarily “newly discovered” if the defendant does not explain why it could not have been found or developed earlier.
It also illustrates that competency and intellectual disability are distinct issues: the authority Jenkins cited concerned a defendant found incompetent, while her own competency evaluation found her competent. Constitutional claims based on intellectual disability must be supported by applicable authority and adequate briefing.