Zaid Albana v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-04-00083-CR

______________________________

ZAID ALBANA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 241-1413-03

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Zaid Albana appeals from his conviction for murder. Albana pled guilty to the murder of Rouzheen Arainpour, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Albana argues that the Texas defense of insanity is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him because it results in cruel and unusual punishment by excluding serious mental illnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Albana and Arainpour had been friends since childhood, but recently had some differences. Kelly O'Dell, Arainpour's girlfriend, testified that it bothered Arainpour "a lot" that he had lost his childhood friend. Albana and Arainpour arranged to meet at Barnes & Noble in Tyler, Texas. Albana confronted Arainpour in front of the store. During the confrontation, Albana shot Arainpour with a rifle. Arainpour stumbled into the Barnes & Noble store bleeding profusely. Albana followed Arainpour into the store while carrying the rifle and screamed: "How do you like that now? How does it feel now?" Albana then fired a second shot into the ceiling of the store, stated that he had "no beef with any of the rest of you," and then calmly left the store. Arainpour eventually died from the gunshot wound.

During the punishment phase, the defense presented several experts who testified that Albana was suffering a delusional disorder, which the experts referred to as a persecutory delusion. Delusion results from a fixed false belief, which the victim believes is true. Albana believed that Arainpour posed a threat to him and wanted to put an end to the fear he felt Arainpour posed. According to the experts, there was a causal connection between the delusional disorder and the commission of the offense. The experts, though, testified Albana knew that his conduct was wrong.

On appeal, Albana argues that the Texas insanity defense is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. According to Albana, the standard results in cruel and unusual punishment because the standard does not consider major mental illnesses which affect the defendant's culpability. //

In Helms v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "Where a plea of guilty is voluntarily and understandingly made, all non-jurisdictional defects including claimed deprivation of federal due process are waived." Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972),overruled in part, Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The Helms rule was modified in Young, 8 S.W.3d at 666 67. Under Young, a defendant's right to challenge errors occurring before his or her guilty or nolo contendere plea are waived "only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and is not supported by, the error." Id. (finding that the judgment of guilt was not independent of a pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress). While both bargaining and nonbargaining defendants can appeal rulings on written pretrial motions and jurisdictional issues, "a non-bargaining defendant pleading guilty may be able to appeal an error not raised on a written pre-trial motion, if it is otherwise preserved and survives Young." Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 619 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Albana did not raise the constitutionality of the defense of insanity at trial. Albana at no time objected on the basis that the Texas insanity defense was unconstitutional, and he filed no pretrial motions challenging the constitutionality of the insanity defense. In general, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require a timely, specific objection as a prerequite to presenting a complaint for appellate review except for fundamental error. // Because Albana did not preserve error, he cannot complain for the first time on appeal that the Texas insanity defense is unconstitutional as applied to him.

A defendant may raise a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute for the first time on appeal. // To succeed on a facial challenge to a statute, the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute will be valid. Santikos v. State, 836 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Because Albana has failed to demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid, he has not met his burden concerning his facial challenge.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 22, 2005

Date Decided: March 17, 2005

Do Not Publish