Thursday Oct 6 2022
SAN ANTONIO — The office of then-Constable Michelle Barrientes Vela collected fines and fees from defendants who had outstanding warrants without arresting them or bringing them before a judge, witnesses said Wednesday in a sentencing hearing in her evidence tampering trial.
The violation of criminal justice procedures was routine and continued even after Vela was warned by then-District Attorney Nicholas “Nico” LaHood that she needed to stop it, said one of the witnesses, Justice of the Peace Roberto Vazquez, whose Bexar County Precinct. 2 court the constable was elected to serve.
The jarring allegations also were detailed by Renee Garza, a longtime clerk and court manager in Precinct 2, who testified that Vela’s deputies collected fines and fees while executing 93 warrants but that much of the money had to be refunded, “because they didn’t have a chance to go before a judge.”
This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate
Ex-constable Michelle Barrientes Vela talks with her attorney, Jasmine Holguin, during the sentencing phase of her on tampering with evidence trial Wednesday.
Vela faces up to 10 years in prison. With no prior criminal record, she has applied for probation.
Vela, a Democrat, served as constable for 33 months before she was forced to resign after publicly announcing a campaign for sheriff while under investigation by Texas Rangers and the FBI stemming from complaints that she shook down a patron at Rodriguez Park in 2019 for security fees on a pavilion he had already paid for.
“She said she knew the Code of Criminal Procedure better than any lawyer or judge,” Vazquez said. “I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say that in my career. I brought (the meeting) to a close. I was aware this was going to be a bumpy ride, but I wanted to make sure the court protected itself.”
Vazquez said he tried numerous other times to talk to Vela about the problem and reached out to LaHood and one of his chiefs in the DA’s office. Vazquez said the practice “trickled off” but did not entirely stop after the DA’s office advised her that what her deputies were doing with warrants “was not lawful.”
“It’s a denial of due process” because the defendants never met with a judge, Vazquez said, adding, “I try to do everything to avoid sending someone to jail.”
On ExpressNews.com: Former Bexar constable Vela found guilty of cooking the books
It was unclear why Vazquez did not hold Vela in contempt of court, which was an option for him. Defense attorney Jason Goss, during his questioning of Vazquez, said the procedure he ascribed to Vela’s office violated no criminal statute, and Vazquez agreed.
LaHood, who has represented Vela since her indictment in 2021 and led her defense team at trial, was not present at Wednesday’s hearing.
Also Wednesday, Meza informed prosecutors and defense lawyers that Mark Anthony Sanchez, the attorney representing a former captain in Vela’s office, Marc Duane Garcia, could be disqualified from that job because Sanchez had represented both Garcia and Vela in several lawsuits filed by Precinct 2 staff.
Prosecutors had alerted the court Tuesday that Garcia had agreed to testify for the prosecution against Vela, in exchange for the dismissal of four criminal cases against him. The development with Sanchez could prevent Garcia from being a witness.
Vela also is charged with three counts of official oppression in connection with her treatment of two deputies — Leonicio Moreno, once Vela’s chief deputy, and former Deputy Constable Christopher De La Cerda. Each had accused her of harassment and retaliation. The men have sued her and Garcia in state and federal court, alleging discrimination and retaliation.
Online court records indicate Garcia has a trial date of Nov. 28 on state charges of aggravated perjury and three counts of official oppression.
When Vela and Garcia were indicted, they were accused having encouraged or directed other employees to harass Moreno and De La Cerda and create “a work environment that was intimidating, hostile, or offensive.”
A perjury charge against Vela, accusing her of making false statements under oath to obtain an arrest warrant for Moreno for allegedly altering training records, was later dropped. The district attorney’s office later declined to prosecute Moreno for lack of evidence.
Before that, Moreno filed federal employment complaints against Vela and sued her for sex discrimination, alleging she retaliated against him because he refused her alleged sexual advances in a hot tub during a 2017 work conference in Galveston.
Vazquez testified Wednesday that he met with Vela to “diplomatically” explain the warrant procedure, “what law enforcement can and can’t do,” because executing those documents is the bulk of what the constable’s office does for his court.
“The meeting did not go very well,” he said, because when he tried to show her the statute in a copy of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, she took it away from him.
Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-News
SAN ANTONIO — The office of then-Constable Michelle Barrientes Vela collected fines and fees from defendants who had outstanding warrants without arresting them or bringing them before a judge, witnesses said Wednesday in a sentencing hearing in her evidence tampering trial.
The violation of criminal justice procedures was routine and continued even after Vela was warned by then-District Attorney Nicholas “Nico” LaHood that she needed to stop it, said one of the witnesses, Justice of the Peace Roberto Vazquez, whose Bexar County Precinct. 2 court the constable was elected to serve.
The jarring allegations also were detailed by Renee Garza, a longtime clerk and court manager in Precinct 2, who testified that Vela’s deputies collected fines and fees while executing 93 warrants but that much of the money had to be refunded, “because they didn’t have a chance to go before a judge.”
A jury convicted Vela in September of two counts of tampering with evidence related to her office’s handling of cash. Vela will be sentenced by state District Judge Velia Meza, and Wednesday’s allegations, which had never been made public, came from prosecution witnesses in the sentencing phase of the trial.