The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.

Former Palm Valley Police Chief Alvaro Garcia appeals his conviction for tampering with governmental records, arguing that the report in question does not qualify as a government record. He also challenges the multiple convictions as a violation of double jeopardy and cites ineffective assistance of counsel. The Cameron County District Attorney’s Office will provide a response soon.

Former Palm Valley Police Chief Alvaro Garcia Appeals Conviction and Highlights Legal Arguments

Former police chief Alvaro Garcia’s conviction and subsequent appeal has garnered attention due to the circumstances surrounding the charges. Garcia was indicted and convicted on three counts of Tampering with Government Records, a state jail felony, related to a training course he provided as an instructor for the Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA). The events leading to his conviction revolve around the attendance and completion of the “Sexual Assault Family Violence Investigator Course” that he taught in April 2018.

Garcia’s contract was with the TMPA, a private nonprofit organization, not with the Texas Commission of Law Enforcement (TCOLE). It was revealed that while Garcia listed 10 participants as having completed the course on the report of training, only 7 had physically attended. However, all 3 individuals who did not physically attend the course had completed the course materials and passed the exam. It’s important to note that there was no requirement for participants to sign the report of training form, and neither TCOLE nor TMPA preclude self-study.

The crux of the indictment against Garcia was that he tampered with a government record with the intent to defraud the TMPA by listing 10 people as having completed the course, instead of the actual 7 who physically attended. This discrepancy led to his conviction and subsequent sentencing to two years of confinement in the State Jail Facility, probated for 5 years for each count, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Following his conviction, Garcia timely filed a Notice of Appeal on March 20, 2023, signaling his intent to challenge the verdict and seek a review of the trial court’s decision.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s Appeal and Legal Arguments

In his argument for why the conviction should be overturned, Garcia asserts that the report of training in question does not qualify as a government record, as it was neither submitted to a government entity nor kept by any government entity. He contends that the State failed to present any direct evidence regarding the origin of the report of training or any evidence indicating that the report was legally required to be kept. Therefore, in his view, the evidence is legally insufficient to support a conviction, and he asserts that he should be acquitted on appeal.

Garcia also argues that the report of training, despite consisting of three pages, was submitted as a whole to the TMPA and pertained to a single course. He maintains that although the jury was presented with the report as three pages of one document, the indictment treated each page as a separate government record to justify three separate tampering felonies. He contends that this resulted in three separate convictions stemming from a single act of submitting one record, and thus the evidence is insufficient to support the three separate felony convictions, calling for his acquittal on appeal.

Furthermore, Garcia points to the ineffective assistance of his counsel, highlighting that his counsel allowed inadmissible and harmful evidence to be introduced without objection and then withdrew the only witness who could counter this evidence. He asserts that these actions prejudiced the guilt/innocence phase of his trial and maintains that there could be no reasonable trial strategy for these errors, leading him to seek relief based on counsel’s ineffectiveness.

These are the key points in Garcia’s argument for overturning his conviction, emphasizing the alleged inadequacy of the evidence and the impact of his counsel’s performance on the outcome of the trial.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s First Issue

In the first issue, former police chief Alvaro Garcia argues that the report of training he submitted to the Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA) does not qualify as a governmental record. According to Garcia, the document in question, consisting of three pages, does not meet the criteria of a government record as it is neither submitted to a government entity nor retained by one. Testimony from TCOLE representative Reynaldo Olvera confirmed that the report of training is kept by the TMPA, a private organization, and not by a government entity. Additionally, TMPA representative Bryan Flatt stated that the form in question has been used by the TMPA for several years and remains in their possession for at least five years.

Garcia cites legal precedents and argues that because the report of training was never received by TCOLE and is maintained by a private non-profit organization, it does not qualify as a governmental record. He asserts that the State lacks evidence to support the essential element of a Section 37.10 prosecution – a governmental record. Therefore, he maintains that the convictions should be overturned and a judgment of acquittal rendered.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s Second Issue

The second issue the former police chief Alvaro Garcia asserts is that the indictment and subsequent multiple convictions constitute a violation of double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. He argues that the amended indictment separated the three-page report of training into three separate felonies, each treated as a separate government record, instead of one felony for the submission of the entire document.

Garcia highlights that while the State consistently referred to the three exhibits collectively and presented the report of training as a singular document, the indictment treated each page as a separate government record to justify three separate tampering felonies. He contends that this resulted in three separate convictions stemming from a single act of submitting one record, which he argues violates the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

Furthermore, Garcia emphasizes that the report of training is one record and not three separate records merely because it consists of three separate pages. He maintains that there was only one act of submission of the report of training to the TMPA and that the subsequent three felony tampering convictions for one record violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s Third Issue

In the third issue related to the conviction, former police chief Alvvaro Garcia argues that his trial counsel was ineffective under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. This ineffectiveness is attributed to the failure of the counsel to properly object or articulate a Daubert objection as to undisclosed expert witnesses and their inadmissible testimony.

Both the United States and Texas Constitutions guarantee an accused the right to the effective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the Appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance. Additionally, a single egregious error of omission or commission by counsel has been held to constitute ineffective assistance, even in the absence of a record setting forth counsel’s reasons for the challenged conduct.

Specifically, Garcia’s argument focuses on the failure of trial counsel to object to undisclosed expert witnesses providing inadmissible testimony, which affected the jury’s determination of guilt. Testimony from Sgt. Reynaldo M. Olvera and Bryan Flatt, designated as fact witnesses by the State but allowed to provide expert and inadmissible testimony, played a crucial role in shaping the narrative around Garcia’s state of mind and intent. This unchallenged testimony included speculation on Garcia’s contractual duties, opinions on his character and truthfulness, as well as the interpretation of contractual terms, which significantly influenced the jury’s perception of the case.

Garcia asserts that trial counsel’s failure to object to the testimony of these witnesses, as well as the absence of a pre-trial disclosure of their expert status, constitutes a deficiency in counsel’s performance. This alleged deficiency impacted the fairness of the trial and the outcome of the proceeding, highlighting the importance of reasonable and competent representation as mandated by legal professional conduct rules.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s Fourth Issue

In the fourth issue, former police chief Alvaro Garcia presents the argument that his trial counsel’s conduct regarding the withdrawal of expert witness Randall Snyder constituted ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Garcia asserts that despite Mr. Snyder’s qualifications and ability to provide crucial testimony regarding the permissibility of self-study as reported on the training form, his trial counsel unexpectedly withdrew Mr. Snyder as an expert witness during the State’s voir dire challenge.

Prior to his withdrawal, Mr. Snyder testified to his extensive education, training, credentials, and qualifications, including his experience as a TCOLE instructor and his role as the training coordinator and lead instructor for the LRGVDC Police Academy. He also affirmed his familiarity with the rules and regulations required by TCOLE, highlighting his expertise in the relevant field. The pivotal nature of Mr. Snyder’s testimony is emphasized by its direct relevance to a key issue in the case: the permissibility of self-study as reported on the training form submitted by the appellant.

Garcia argues that withdrawing Mr. Snyder as an expert witness effectively deprived the jury of hearing vital and favorable testimony on the pivotal issue at hand, despite the court’s indication that it would grant counsel leeway with Mr. Snyder. The decision to withdraw Mr. Snyder without a thoroughly investigated trial strategy and without reasonable justification is posited as falling below the objective standard of reasonableness required of trial counsel. This alleged deficiency in counsel’s performance is underscored by the vital nature of the testimony that was not presented to the jury, as it was crucial in countering the State’s witnesses and addressing the key issue in the case.

Former Police Chief Alvaro Garcia’s Fifth Issue

In his fifth issue, former police chief Alvvaro Garcia contends that the cumulative effect of the errors calls for a reversal of the outcome and renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Drawing on legal precedent, including Strickland v. Washington, Garcia emphasizes the principle that the Court must consider the totality of errors and evidence in a case when assessing prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This concept aligns with the cumulative harm standard, where a series of errors, even if individually harmless, may collectively produce a harmful effect.

Garcia asserts that the errors throughout his proceedings were overwhelming and significantly impacted the themes of the State’s case. Specifically, he highlights the missed objections that allowed the State to advance its key arguments regarding the nature of the report of training as a government record, the interpretation of completion of the course, and the alleged tampering with a government record. Garcia emphasizes that these themes were reinforced through the testimony of key witnesses, Mr. Olvera and Mr. Flatt, with Trial Counsel failing to raise objections as they provided self-serving narratives and interpreted contractual terms for the jury.

Notably, Garcia points out that Trial Counsel’s withdrawal of the witness, Mr. Snyder, further compounded the issues by depriving the defense of crucial counter testimony against the narratives presented by the State’s witnesses. He underscores that these collective errors effectively ensured a conviction and, therefore, establish prejudice for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, ultimately rendering his trial fundamentally unfair.

Response Pending From Cameron County District Attorney’s Office

The Cameron County District Attorney’s Office will have opportunity to submit a brief supporting the conviction of the former police chief. After which time, the 13th Court of Appeals should render its decision on this high profile matter of a police chief being arrested and convicted for records tampering.

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.

Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News