Thursday, May 30, 2013

 
MARGARITA OZUNA PLEADS NO CONTEST - SENTENCING PENDING

Margarita Ozuna plead no contest to a lessor included office of 86.10(g)

"g) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the person is convicted of an offense under Section 64.036 for providing unlawful assistance to the same voter, in which event the offense is a state jail felony."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/7/A/86/86.010

This is the politiquera case involving the harvesting of mail ballots

SENTENCING

Judge Janel Leal refused to accept the plea bargain pending a presentence investigation.  The parties will be back in court on the 14th of June for sentencing.  Judge Leal told Ozuna that a condition of her probation if she gets probation would be not aiding in elections in the  future.

To every one's shock, Ozuna responded with a "never?"  Judge Leal qualified her statement to mean during the time of probation.

Ozuna is facing 180 days to 2 years in jail, but will probably get 2 years probation.

See Indictment

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/150286921/Ozuna

The plea agreement is to count 2.   As part of the plea being removed from the indictment is the language at the end "and while assisting Ricardo ... ." 

I am not sure if they need to amend this.

The trial transcript which lead to her indictment follows:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42131804/ElectionFraud-Penatrial-Part1

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42132051/ElectionFraudPenaTrialPart2

In part one the first voter witness is Ricardo Liceaga. If you look to the top of the document you should be able to figure out how to fast forward to page 73. The indictment is based on the testimony of Ricardo Liceaga

SIDE NOTE:

I will  assume, because I have no evidence to the contrary that Judge Janet Leal changed how she does things based on Villalobos trial, that what happened in Judge Leal's court today is her standard practice.

In 2 unrelated cases, Judge Leal gave the probation officers a very powerful voice.  In one case she reset the case until the probation office could be there to explain why the defendant failed in pretrial diversion.

In a second  case she told the defendant that she will be  turning to the probation office for guidance as to what she would be doing in the future.

I am assuming she has always done it this way.

I just note this because in the Villalobos case, the probation officers complained that the judges do not listen to them.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one that has noticed that ever since BV covered the Villalobos trial; some of the other blogs haven't been ummm......blogging. It seems the wind has been taken from a drunken sailors' sails. Just saying!

Anonymous said...

No you are not alone.I noticed as well.They only seem to blog about Bobby instead of the issues.It's just jealousy rearing its ugly head.

BobbyWC said...

ON JUDGE JANET LEAL:

I found out today that it has always been her policy to give the probation officers a strong voice - this is a good thing - the probation officers need to be heard.

Bobby WC