Hector Jose Subia v. The State of Texas Appeal from 385th District Court of Midland County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed May 25, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-15-00084-CR __________ HECTOR JOSE SUBIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 385th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 42,618 MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Hector Jose Subia of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, aggravated assault of a peace officer by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated assault. The jury found two enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $5,000 for the offense of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, confinement for eighty years and a $10,000 fine for the offense of aggravated assault of a peace officer, by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, and confinement for sixty-five years and a fine of $10,000 for the offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated assault. Appellant presents one point of error on appeal. In Appellant’s sole point of error, he argues that the trial court erred when it had him appear before the jury dressed in jail clothing during the punishment phase of trial. Appellant contends that Appellant’s appearance in jail clothes impermissibly infringed upon his presumption of innocence for the commission of the extraneous offenses presented and, thus, violated his due process right to a fair trial. The State argues that Appellant has not preserved this point of error for appellate review. We agree with the State. When a trial court forces a defendant to appear at trial in jail clothes, it might thereby impinge upon the presumption of innocence afforded to an accused. Calamaco v. State, 462 S.W.3d 587, 597 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d) (citing Lantrip v. State, 336 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.)). However, a defendant who does not desire to wear jail attire must timely object. Id. Appellant concedes that he did not at any time object to the clothing worn during the punishment phase of trial. Further, there is no evidence in the record that suggests that the trial court forced Appellant to wear jail attire. Accordingly, Appellant has not preserved this point of error for our review. Appellant’s sole point of error is overruled. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. JIM R. WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE May 25, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
