### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444444444444444444 ON REMAND

444444444444444444

NO. 03-02-00624- CR

Cha r lie F le nt e r oy , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30136 64, H ONO RAB LE FRANKW. B RY AN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N On orig inal submissi on, we noted that this appeal pre sented “ an unusual proc edura l question.” Fl e nte ro

yv . S tate , 105 S.W .3d 702, 704 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003). Appellant F lenteroy was indi cted for agg ravated robbery by using or exhibi ting a

deadly wea pon, “to wit: a scre wdriver .” SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 29.03( a)( 2) (West 2003). The offe nse wa s submitt ed to the jury at the g uil t/i nn oc e nc e sta g e of

the tr ia l a s all e g e d. Duri ng de lib e ra tio ns , the jur

y a sk e d w he the r i t ha d to find a scr ew d ri v er was used “ in order to f ind that a dea dly

wea pon was used.” The trial c ourt responde d that it was not permitted to answe r the que stion. The jury found appe llant guilty

of the2

le sser i nclu de d o ff

e ns e of ro bb e ry , r e

je c tin g an e sse nti a l e le me nt o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

of fe ns e char g ed. Id
. At the pena lty stag e of the tri al, over

objection, another

deadly wea pon issue was resubmitted to the jury

without further notice to appellant and w ithout fu rt her e vidence . The jury was instructe d to fill in a blank in i t s verdic t form namingand spec ifying the instrument used or exhibi ted and de termine whe ther it was a deadly wea pon. The prose cutor, in his argument, urg ed the jury to fill in t he blank with a “ hard me tal-like object.” The jury did so and asse ssed appe llant’s punishment at twenty

y ear s’ imprisonment. On or ig ina l su

bmi ssi on , w e he ld that a

pp e lla nt wa s de nie d no tic e that the State wo uld seek a second f inding of a deadly wea

pon (a “har d metal-like object”) at the pena lty stag e of the trial wh e n th e on ly

no tic e g ive n w a s th e ind ic tme nt’ s a lle g a tio n that a scr ewd ri ve r h a d b e e n u se d a s a deadly wea pon. Id . at 71 . We c on c lud e d th a t a pp e lla nt wa s h arm e d b y

havin g his lib e rt

y int e re st (par ole elig ibilit y

) diminished by

the er roneous de adly

wea pon finding
. We deleted the aff irmative finding of a de adly

wea pon from the judg ment and af firmed the r obbery

judgme nt of conviction, as modified. Id
. The State’s pe tition for discretionar y revie w was g rante d. I n Fl e nte ro yv . S tate , No. P.D. 831-03, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 519 (Tex. C rim. App
. Ap ri l 6 , 2 005), the Court of Criminal Appeals in a 6-2 opinion re verse d the judg ment of this Court and rema nded the c ause f

or proce eding s consistent with i t s o p i n i o n . Id . (at *16). T he opinion commence d, “The controlling issue in thi s ca u s e is whether a var iance betwee n a dea dly wea pon alleg ation in the indictment (a
scre wdriver ) and pr oof at trial (“a hard metal-like object”) is material. We dec ide that this varianc eThe Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls’s approa ch appe are d t o b e b as ed on the State’ s 1 wording of t he grounds f

or re view. Se e Fl e nte ro

y v . S tate , No. P.D. 831-03, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 519, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. April 6, 2005). As noted in the dissenting opinion: “Contrar y to the State’s asser

tions, the court of a

ppeals’ opinion did not rely upon the fa ct that appe llant lacked notice that use of

a dea dly wea pon would be an issue a

t trial. Id . at *21 (Johnson, J ., dissenting)
. 3 is not material.” Id
. at *1. The court noted that appellant denied usinga we apon and te stified that 1 he g ot in the car and drove off when the complainant went to the convenie nce store. Id . at *2. The court obser

ved, however, that the S tate presented evidence that appellant thre atene d the complainant “with some ty

pe of w eapon” during the cour se of the r obbery , and “used either a knife, or a
scre wdriver , or a ha

rd metal-like obje ct.” Id . The Court of C ri m i n al Appeals concluded that the State proved bey ond a reasonable doubt that appellant “used som e ty pe of deadly wea

pon,” that the State timely

informed a

ppellant it would seek a

deadly wea pon finding at trial, and the issue “come s down to whether

the var iance betwee n” the indictment’s alleg ation of a sc rew driver a nd proof at trial (a “ hard me tal-like objec t”) wa s material. Id . at *14. The c ourt then stated: Where, a s here , the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that appellant used a “ hard me tal-like objec t” as a deadly wea po n b u t t he State did not prove exactly what it alleg ed (i.e ., a scr ewdr i v er ), t h e issue is whethe r the indictment “informe d appellant of the charg e aga inst him sufficie ntly to show harm to pre pare an ade quate de fense at trial. See G ollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 248.
Id . at *14-15. The Court then de termined that that a ppellant’s def

ense w as not aff

ecte d by the “scr ewdr iver” alleg ation and did not depend on whether any particula r ty pe of w eapon w as used. Id . at *15-16. Ag ain, it was asse rted ther e wa s no material va rianc e betwe en the “ scre wdriv er” alleg ation and proof

of a “ hard me tal-like objec t.” Id . at *16. The c ourt then adde d:4

Whil e this Court may

not nece ssarily

condone the unorthodox proce dure f ollowed by the trial cour

t, we ca n not say that in this particular c ase a nd on this particular re c or d th a t th is p ro c e dure fu nd ame nta lly

vio lated a pp e lla nt’ s f e de ra l and

state constitutional rights.
Id
. Followingthe ac tion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this Court notified counsel and g ave the parties a

n opportunity

to f ile a brief a fter r emand. Se e The us v . S tate , 863 S.W .2d 489, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). No brief s have be en filed. Appellant’s f

ourth point of err or was the only contention not a ddresse d on orig inal submissi on. I n it, appellant contends that the constitutional doctrine of c ollatera l estoppel prohibited the prosec ution from relitig ating “via the submitted special issue at the punishment phase, whether appellant use d or exhibit ed a de adly wea pon.” Th e the or y of c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l is e mbo die d in the c on sti tut ion a l g ua ra nte e a g a ins t double jeopar dy

and pre cludes the State fr o m twice litigating issues of ultimate f act. See A she v. Swenson , 3 97 U. S. 4 36 , 4 43 (1 97 0) ; Cha v e z v. Sta te , 8 60 S.W. 2d

71 4, 71 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 1993, no pet.).

Col late ra l e sto pp e l on ly

a pp lie s a ft e r an iss ue of

fa c t ha s b e e n d e te rm ine d b y a va lid and fina l judgment. See A she , 3 97 U. S. at 44 4; Ex parte Tarve r , 7 25 S.W. 2d 19 5, 19 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); G o n g o r a v . Sta te , 916 S.W. 2d 57 0, 57 4 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 96 , p e t. ref ’d). A c onviction from which a n appea l has bee n taken is not consider ed final until the conviction is affirme d and the mandate of a ff i rm an ce b ecomes final. Ga rc ia v . S tate , 768 S.W .2d 726, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).5 Mo re ov e r, art ic le 37 .0 7, se c tio n 3 (c ) p ro vid e s:
I n case s where the matter of punishment is refer

red to the j ury , the ver dict will not be complete until the jury has re ndere d a ver dict on both the g uilt or innoc ence of the d e f e n d an tan d

t h e am o u n to f

p u n i s h m e n tw h e r e t h e j u r y f i n d s t h e d e f

e n d an tg u i l t y.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 37.07, § 3(c ) (West Supp. 2004-05).

Her e, ther e wa s no final judg ment. L ike in Ch avez , t h e a rgu ab l y i n co n s i s t en tfi n d i n gs
wer e conta ined in the g uilt and punishment stag es of the same bifurcated trial. See860 S.W .2d at 716. The doctrine of collater al estoppel has no application here. A ppellant’s four

th point of error is without m erit and is over ruled. The judg ment of convic tion for robbe ry , wit h t h e af fi rm ative findingof the use a s exhibi tion of a dea dly

wea pon, a “ha

rd metal-like obje ct,” is af firmed.

J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Onion * Affir med Filed: August 25, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh Be fore J ohn F. Oni on, J r., Presiding J udg e (r etired) , Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by * assig nment. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 1998).