Judge Denies Gangland Executioner's Motion for New Trial

Johnny Garcia believes he’s innocent. At least that’s what he told Judge Barbara Walther on Wednesday morning at a hearing regarding his recent motion for new trial. Despite his March 16 guilty plea and the quick conviction of his co-defendant Daniel Uvalle, who held a group of teens and 20-somethings hostage while Garcia executed the killings, he thinks he’s got a shot.

“We’re two separate people, two separate cases, and I believe I have a chance,” he addressed Judge Barbara Walther, not amused. “I believe I’m not guilty of capital murder.” The 15 plus seated in the gallery scoffed.

Handwritten letters from a Huntsville prison cell reached the desk of the 51^st District Judge the third week of April, each line carefully written by the capital murderer, who is now seeking a new trial.

Johnny Garcia, the 20-year-old convicted killer of 22 year olds Tabitha Freeman and Alvaro Carrillo, Jr., is asking Walther to arrest the judgment that landed him life without parole when he confessed his guilt in a plea hearing. He is also seeking a new trial, citing conflicts of interest and a criminal case pending against one of his two defense attorneys, John Young.

Garcia’s motion was drafted and mailed on April 15 and, following two responses from prosecuting attorney Allison Palmer, the parties met in the courtroom Wednesday morning for a hearing on the motion for new trial.

Garcia, who is representing himself in the appeal, pled guilty to capital murder on March 16. His motion is built upon three claims, including an assertion that he repeatedly told court appointed counsel Theodore “Tip” Hargrove and John Young that he would never entertain an offer of life without parole. He also claims he has tried several times to substitute John Young as his counsel due to an unnamed  conflict of interest.

That conflict was at the heart of Wednesday’s hearing, however despite Walther’s attempts to elicit a specific instance of inappropriate behavior on behalf of Young from the defendant, Garcia instead lodged a list of complaints about how his attorneys didn’t talk to him enough and how Young would only present him with plea papers when he visited him in jail.

“I don’t remember my lawyers doing any work for me at all,” Garcia said. “They could have come at me a different way.”

Garcia, who was initially represented by the Regional Public Defenders Office, was facing the death penalty until Palmer decided to waive it in October 2014. At that point, Hargrove and Young were appointed to the case and picked up where the previous legal team had left off.

After Uvalle’s trial and conviction, talk of the death penalty re-entering the game circulated, as did the contemplation of a plea bargain. Garcia stated in his motion he would never entertain a sentence of life without parole and claimed in the hearing that his attorneys began pushing the plea on him, telling him they didn’t know how to defend his case.

In her response to Garcia’s motion, the state provided transcripts from the plea hearing in which attorneys talked about the evolution of the case and the possible punishment, including both the threat of the death penalty at trial and the plea to life without parole. Young and Hargrove explained why their client had opted to enter a plea at that hearing.

“Frankly the rumor was the death penalty might go back on the table,” Hargrove said. “And I don’t deal in rumors.”

Hargrove told the court he had personally asked Palmer about the death penalty and received the following answer: “Delay of this case would be bad, but final decisions about punishment have not yet been made and will be made in the future depending on what you gentlemen decide on your own.”

Hargrove said that the response was one of the reasons they were present in the courtroom on March 16 and, at his right, attorney John Young stood up to address the court.

“It was my understanding that the death penalty may very well be put back on the table based upon those very same factors,” he said, referencing Hargrove’s mention of the DA’s ability to “test” her case against a jury in co-defendant Daniel Uvalle’s trial.

Having heard the attorneys’ reasoning, Palmer explained to the court her decision on the case.

“Judge, in the capital murder…case, we do persist in our waiver of the death penalty, and so there is only the one punishment option of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” she said. “And we do recommend the Court assess that punishment.”

After Judge Walther went over all elements of the plea deal, she looked at Garcia. “Is that what you understand you’ve agreed to, Mr. Garcia?”

“Yes, ma’am,” he replied, entering a plea of “guilty”. He agreed that he was making the plea freely and voluntarily.

On Wednesday, Garcia retracted that admission, stating that he had been pushed to take the deal by attorneys who were looking for a quick resolution and didn’t “care” about him or his case.

“I kind of stepped down and signed because I didn’t think they were going to do anything for me anyway,” he said. “I really feel like—at the time, I didn’t realize it; I had barely woken up—but really feel like I was forced to sign.” He added that he still wants to go to trial even though he would certainly be facing the death penalty now, and told the judge he thought John Young was trying to get his case over with so he could handle his own.

Palmer noted her response to his motion that Young was only one of the two attorneys appointed to Garcia’s case and that he had made no complaints about Hargrove, and stated that there was no evidence to support claims of any attempts to substitute counsel.

“The defendant…alleges that he tried to obtain substitute counsel for John Young…because a conflict of interested existed and no Garcia hearing was held,” Palmer responded. “However, upon review of the Court’s file, the State finds no motion or docket entry to support this allegation…no conflict (of interest with John Young) is specifically identified or substantiated in the defendant’s motion for new trial.”

Garcia’s answer to the lack of evidence regarding an effort to fire John Young was simple. “On February 6 I tried to fire my lawyers but I didn’t know how to file the motion,” he said. He then told Walther that she’d heard him too.

Garcia did get into an argument with his lawyers and express some dissatisfaction at a hearing held on Feb. 3, however after speaking with the judge he sat back down and agreed to let the lawyers handle the law.

Still looking for a specific instance that would define a conflict of interest, Judge Barbara Walther on Wednesday pressed for Garcia to explain exactly what the conflict with Young was. Garcia reached for Young’s criminal case, which alleges he was involved in forging the will of a deceased client in order to obtain and plunder his multi-million dollar estate.

In his motion, Garcia states that Young was “under investigation by same D.A [sic] office for felony charges and subsequently charged, booked into same county jail with defendant and in media [sic]”.  In a later letter, he turns up the heat, claiming that not only were the attorneys aware of the investigation, but the judge might have been too, and that they delayed his indictment until Garcia was locked up for life.

“Its [sic] disturbing enough the D.A [sic] office and Mr. John S. Young were fully aware that such representation was of COI (conflict of interest) and should not of [sic] proceeded, but there is an Allegation, you too was aware [sic], and (if) True would need to be reported to Judicial Committe [sic] on misconduct,” Garcia wrote to Walther on April 16.

“Mr. John S. Young, [sic] criminal situation was delayed until he obtained a conviction on my case,” the letter continued. “Mr. John S. Young was in the Media and in Jail with me.”

Garcia’s first letter concluded with a prayer for a new trial or an arrested judgment and the substitution of counsel that has no conflict of interest. In the least, he prayed for a hearing on the matter and certified the truthfulness of his claims under penalty of perjury.

In response, Palmer noted several factual errors, beginning by clarifying that John Young’s case is being handled by white collar crime attorney Cliff Herberg for the Texas Attorney General’s Office, not herself or 119^th District Attorney George McCrea, who offices in the same space as Palmer. She further noted that Garcia himself pled guilty little over a week before charges were filed against Young and that the case against Young is wholly unrelated to the execution-style murders Garcia carried out on Sept. 1, 2013.

“The defendant’s vague insinuation of a conflict does not amount to an actual conflict; in fact, as set out above, the record does not support the defendant’s claim that conflict existed,” Palmer wrote.

Another factual error was Garcia’s allegation that Young was “booked into the same county jail with defendant”. Young turned himself in Fisher County on March 26, 10 days after Garcia pled guilty to the crimes. Online records do not indicate that Young has ever been booked into the Tom Green County Jail, where Garcia was incarcerated until his transfer to Abilene on April 10.

During the plea hearing, Garcia waived his right to appeal except on matters raised and ruled on prior to trial, which were no-existent his motion, or if the court grants permission.

Standing before a half-full gallery seated with members of both victim’s families, Palmer requested the judge deny requests for appeal and for a new trial, stating that Garcia’s claims were unsubstantiated. She presented the court with affidavits from both Hargrove and Young and added, “the defendant got the best possible outcome…” noting that the only option aside from death was life without parole.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Walther addressed each of the three claims made in Garcia’s motion, denying each one as unsubstantiated and unfounded. In less than 40 minutes time, she denied his request for a new trial and for an appeal and the 20-year-old was escorted out of the courtroom in chains.

As he left, victim Tabitha Freeman’s mother Karen broke down in loud sobs. “How could you?” she cried. “You killed my baby girl. You’re just garbage.”