Convicted Firearm Smuggler Motions for New Trial

SAN ANGELO, TX – After being convicted of smuggling a firearm, a third degree felony, in January of this year, Felix Antonio Pina, 20, appeared before Judge Goodwin’s 391st District Court to present a motion for a new trial. According to the new defense counselor, Connie Kelly, the previous defense attorney, Tom Williams, had opened the door to certain evidence that had been prejudicial for her client.

As the defense prepared their argument, Kelly called Mr. Williams to the stand. She began questioning him about the way he had handled the introduction of certain evidence during the trial. Williams said when the state had presented an audio clip of the police interview he had objected. It was his position that the clip was more prejudicial than probative and that the state had sufficient evidence that didn’t require the admission of the audio. The judge had overruled the objection and had allowed the state to introduce the audio.

In the clip, according to Williams, A detective is asking Pina questions and making statements regarding his past. Pina’s alleged association with Darkside 2-6, his position in the upper hierarchy in the group, as well as the gang’s reputation in the streets. Williams also stated that the statements regarding the defendant’s 2-year-old daughter, and the fact that it has been very fortunate she was not in the apartment when the stolen gun had gone off.

Williams argued that his voir dire statements, in which he alleged that his client had bought the gun, but had no prior knowledge of the fact that it was stolen, had not fallen under the “opening the door” principle. He has made certain statements to explain to the jury what had happened and how his client had gotten to this situation. Kelly continued to question the fact that his defense tactic had allowed the evidence to be presented before the court.

Joe Johnson, representing the District Attorney’s office, questioned Williams regarding the defenses tactic during the trial. According to Johnson, if the defense’s “central issue was the [defendant's] knowledge” then the state had the right to question that. Williams argued that he had wanted to exclude the audio because it brought no evidence to the case that was truly substantial.  

During jury selection, the majority of the candidates had stated they owned a gun or had bought one from a third party, and this seemed to indicate that they could too have been in the same situation as his client. Johnson then went on to agree that many people owned guns, stating, “Yeah we are in Texas.”

After the questioning ended, Kelly went on to argue that Williams had provided a “deficient representation” to her client, and that if he had been able to keep certain evidence from being introduced, there was a “possibility of a different outcome.” She argued that the scope of the case had been too broad and that certain evidence had nothing to do with the smuggling charge. She asked the court to take into consideration the motion for a new trial.

Judge Goodwin thanked both parties, and took the arguments under advisement. Kelly asked the court to review two cases she felt would strengthen the defense's position. As of this moment, however, there are no set dates for any new motions.

For the original outcome and sentencing of this case, click here.