Severo Pelayo Jaimes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County (dissenting opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed August 27, 2020. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00791-CR SEVERO PELAYO JAIMES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1530605 DISSENTING OPINION Fundamental fairness and due process require that an accused have a sufficient understanding of the proceedings against him to ensure that he can assist in his own defense and be aware of what is transpiring during the course of the proceedings. See Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 493, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Ex parte Cockrell, 424 S.W.3d 543, 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Tijerina, 571 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). These protections extend to those accused who do not speak English and to those who are hearing impaired. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.31(a); Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 501-02. A “hearing impairment” under the statute does not require complete hearing loss—it includes hearing loss that limits the range or extent of hearing to the point that it “inhibits the person’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication with others.” Cockrell, 424 S.W.3d at 546 (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.31(a), (g)(1)). The record shows that Mr. Jaimes could answer some questions with ease but had trouble understanding others. That said, the ability to answer some questions does not necessarily mean that he could hear and understand the proceedings. The majority discusses the number of questions that Jaimes was able to answer in both phases of the trial—however, the record does not show where the interpreter was standing or if Jaimes could read the interpreter’s lips or otherwise understand what the interpreter was saying. Jaimes could not hear the jury’s verdict or understand what it meant. In fact, during his testimony in the punishment phase, he was surprised to find out that he had been found guilty. The verdict is a fundamental part of any criminal trial, and the inability to understand the jury’s verdict indicates an inability to understand the proceedings. Determining whether a hearing-impaired individual comprehends the proceedings is more art than science. However, when it is clear from the record that the accused did not understand a fundamental aspect of the trial, as here, I would conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in not ensuring that the accused could understand and participate in the proceedings against him; because the majority does not, I dissent. /s/ Frances Bourliot Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot. (Bourliot, J., dissenting). Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
