IF HE PREVAILS, CHAMBERS' APPEAL COULD THROW OUT CONVICTIONS

By Juan Montoya
With the granting by the Court of Criminal Appeals of a rarely obtained discretionary review to former Indian Lake Police Chief John Chambers of his conviction on 14 counts of tampering with governmental records with intent to defraud or harm, each a state jail felony, the stage is set to determine whether 103rd District Court Judge Janet Leal erred in several ways.

Specifically, Chambers was accused of submitting fourteen firearm qualifications forms indicating that each “reserve” police officer passed a firearms qualification practical pistol course on September 20, 2014, with a firearm registered to him.

In his petition for review, Chambers claims that evidence during his defense showed that each reserve police officer had, in fact, passed the firearms qualification practical pistol course that calendar year, the calendar date and weapon serial number were not properly identified.

Chambers, as the police chief, delegated the responsibility of correcting the firearms qualification deficiencies to his second-in-command, Fred Avalos. Avalos instead went to officers with the  Texas Commission On Law Enforcement (TCOLE) where he demanded and obtained a verbal promise of criminal immunity.

Chambers claims that Avalos subsequently personally created each one of the documents at issue in the case, placing the identical incorrect information into each one, namely the incorrect date and weapon serial number. Avalos stood to benefit from Chamber's ousting as Police Chief because, as the only other peace officer in the Indian Lakes PD, he would become the Police Chief by default. He actually did become the interim Police Chief for a short time.

After the trial court certified Chambers right to appeal, he timely filed a notice of appeal in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. In a published opinion, the court of appeals affirmed Leal's judgment. A motion for rehearing en banc was subsequently denied. Chambers then turned to the criminal appeals court with a petition of discretionary review to challenge the court of appeals’ conclusions and holdings.

In his petition, Chambers says his convictions should be overturned because the trial court:

1. Refused to Acknowledge that the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement was acting in contravention of its legal authority.

2. Abused its discretion by failing to submit an instruction to the jury on the applicable law regarding the distinction between an employee and a volunteer reservist.

3. His lawyers further state that the Difference between the class A misdemeanor and the felony enhancement pursuant to the Texas Penal Code is a distinction without a difference. In addition, the appellate court’s reliance upon an improper application of law is legally insufficient to uphold a finding of an “intent to defraud.”

The case against Chambers came as he was involved in a race for the Republican Party nomination for Cameron County Sheriff. He actually won the nomination, but his name was removed from the ballot.

Part of the investigation was carried out by members of the Cameron County District Attorney's Office Public Integrity Unit. It just so happened that one of his political opponents was Victor Cortez, was in charge of the PIU.

In fact, during Chambers' trial, Cortez took an active role in his prosecution, huddling in the corridors with Asst. DAs and investigators. (See graphic at right.)

Despite the convictions a month before the party primary elections, Republican voters gave Chambers 3,395 votes, Cortez 2,662, Robert Rodriguez, 2,365 and Michael Watkins 2,182.

His removal from the ballot resulted in  Cortez facing Rodriguez, who finished behind Chambers by 1,030.

When Chamber was removed from the ballot, Cortez went on to be the Republican nominee for his party in the general election and lost to incumbent Omar Lucio. It should also be noted that Chambers' supporters have pointed out that Judge Leal shared offices with DA Luis Saenz before both were elected to office.