No. 13-14-683-CR
IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI AND EDINBURG, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER SIEBERT, Appellant

vs. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from Cause No. 14-CR-0055-C in the 94 th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Texas, the Hon. Bobby Galvan presiding

APPELLANT’S BRIEF Respectfully submitted by:
Donald B. Edwards State Bar No. 06469050 Law Office of Donald B. Edwards P.O. Box 3302 Corpus Christi, TX 78463-3302 (361) 887-7007 (361) 887-7009 (fax)

Appellant requests oral argument ACCEPTED 13-14-683-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 5/26/2015 1:53:40 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERKLi s t o f Pa rti es

Appel l ant Ch ri s t o p h er Si eb ert TDCJ # 01 9 6 08 9 8 Garza W es t Un i t 4 2 5 0 S HW Y. 2 02 Beev i l l e, TX 7 8 1 0 2 Appel l ant’s Tri a l Co uns el Appel l a nt’s Appel l a te Co uns el
M r. Gab ri el Sal ai s M r. Do n al d B. Ed ward s 4 1 0 Peo p l e’ s St

. Law Offi ce o f Do n al d B. Ed ward s Co rp u s Ch ri st i, TX 7 8 4 01 P.O. Bo x 3 3 0 2 Co rp u s Ch ri st i , TX 7 84 6 3-3 3 0 2 Vero n i ca Garza (wi t h drew) 5 0 0 N. W at er St ., St e. 6 01 Co rp u s Ch ri st i, TX 7 8 4 01

Appel l ee Sta te o f Tex a s Tri a l a nd Appel l a te Co uns el
M s . El i zab et h Sch m i d t (t ri al ) M r. M at t h ew M an n i n g (t ri al ) M r. Do u g No rm an (ap p el lat e) As s t. Nu eces Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey s 9 0 1 Leo p ard St

. Co rp u s Ch ri st i, TX 7 8 4 01

2Ta bl e o f Co ntents

Li s t o f Part i es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Tab le o f Co n t en t s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
In d ex o f Au t h ori ti es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
St at em en t o f t he Cas e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Is s u es Pres en t ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
St at em en t o f Fact s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Un d erl y in g fact s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Pro ced u ral h i s to ry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Su m m ary o f t h e Arg u m en t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Arg um en t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 I. Th e ev i d en ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p ort t h e co n v ict i o n
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 A. St an d ard o f rev i ew.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 B. Th e ch arg ed o ffen s e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 C. Th e ev i d en ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt i n feren ce o f g u i l t

. . . . . . 2 1 II. Th e t ri al co u rt co m

m i t t ed eg reg ri ou s ly

h arm fu l erro r b y

ch arg i ng t h e ju ry co n cern i n g a co n d u ct el em en t t h at i s n o t an el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e, t h u s ex p an d i n g t h e d efi ni t i o n o f t h e o ffen s e b ey on d t hat s et o ut i n t h e s t at u t e an d p erm i t t i n g a fi n d i n g o f g u i l t b as ed o n i n o ffen si v e co n d u ct

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 A. Co n d u ct el emen t s i n g en er a l

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 B. Su ch erro r co n s t i tu t es eg reg i o u s erro r..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 III. Tri al co u n sel was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject t o t h e ch arg e an d t o p ro s ecu t o ri al m i s s t at em en t o f t h e l aw i n cl o s i n g arg um en t..

. . . . . . 2 4 A. St an d ard s reg ard i n g co u ns el i n effect i v en es s cl ai m s
. . . . . . . . . . 2 4 B. Ap pl i cat i on
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Pray er.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

3Cert i fi cat e o f Co m p l i an ce an d Serv i ce.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

4I ndex o f Autho ri ti es

Ca s es
Almanza v. State , 686 S.W .2d 157 (Tex.Crim .App. 1985)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 , 2 4
Ba r fi el d v. S ta te , 6 3 S.W .3 d 4 4 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Br u no v. S t a te , 8 4 5 S.W .2 d 9 1 0 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0
Cl a yt o n v. S ta t e , 2 35 S.W

. 3 d 7 7 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Cook v. State , 884 S.W .2d 485 (Tex. Crim . App. 1994)

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
Ellison v. State , 86 S.W .3d 226 (Tex. Crim . App. 2002)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Ex parte Brown , 205 S.W .3d 538 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
Ha r t v. S ta t e , 8 9 S.W .3 d 6 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 2 0 0 2).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Her na n d ez v. S t a t e , 8 1 9 S.W

. 2 d 8 0 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 1 9 9 1).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Hooper v. State , 214 S.W .3d 9 (Tex. Crim . App. 2007)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 , 1 8 Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 , 1 7 Jef f er s o n v. S t a t e , 1 8 9 S.W .3 d 3 0 5 (Tex

. Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Ki n g v. S t a t e , 8 9 5 S.W .2 d 7 0 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
Lane v. State , 763 S.W .2d 785 (Tex. Crim . App. 1989)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Lopez v. State , 343 S.W

. 3d 137 (Tex. Crim . App. 2011)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
Ma l ik v. S t a t e , 9 5 3 S.W .2 d 2 34 (Tex .Cri m .Ap p
. 1 9 9 7).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Martinez v. State , 313 S.W .3d 358 (Tex. App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref ' d)

. . . . 2 5

5McGee v. State , 774 S.W .2d 229 (Tex. Crim

. App. 1989)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

McGi n n v. S t at e , 9 6 1 S.W .2 d 1 6 1 (Tex

. Cri m . Ap p. 1 9 9 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 1449 (1970)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 McQu een v. S t a t e , 7 8 1 S.W .2 d 6 0 0 (Tex .Cri m .Ap p . 1 9 8 9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0
Mo s l ey v. S t a t e , 9 8 3 S.W .2 d 2 4 9 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 1 9 9 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
Ph i l l ip s v. S ta te , 1 3 0 S.W .3 d 3 4 3 (Tex . Ap p.-Ho u s to n [1 4 t h Di s t .] 2 0 0 4 ), a f f 'd , 1 9 3 S.W .3 d 9 0 4 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
Powell v. Alabama , 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55 (1932)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
Po wel l v. S t a t e , 1 9 4 S.W .3 d 50 3 (Tex . Cri m
. Ap p . 2 0 06 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Randon v. State , 178 S.W .3d 95 (Tex. App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)

. . . . . . . 2 6
Robertson v. State , 187 S.W .3d 475 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
Robertson v. State , 871 S.W .2d 701 (Tex. Crim . App. 1993)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
Saunders v. State , 817 S.W .2d 688 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Thompson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 808 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
Th r ea d g i l l v. S t a t e , 1 46 S.W .3 d 6 5 4 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 00 4 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
W i l l ia ms v. S ta t e , 2 3 5 S.W

. 3 d 7 4 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
W i n fr ey v. S t a t e , 3 9 3 S.W .3 d 7 6 3 (Tex

. Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 1 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
W ood v. State , 260 S.W

. 3d 146 (Tex. App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)

. . . . . . . 2 6

6Sta tutes

T E X
. P E N A L C O D E A N N
. § 6 .0 3 (a), (b ) (Vern o n 2 0 0 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
T E X
. P E N A L C O D E A N N . § 6.03(a), (b) (Vernon 2003)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
T E X
. P E N A L C O D E A N N
. § 3 1.0 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

7Sta tem ent o f the Ca s e

On Sep t em

b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 4 , a ju ry fo u n d Ch ri st o p her Si eb ert g u i l t y o f

u n a u t h o ri zed u s e o f a v eh i cl e. CR 69

. Ap p el l an t el ect ed fo r t h e co urt t o as s e s s
p u n i s h m en t

. CR 3 7

. At a s ep arat e p u ni s h m en t h eari n g o n Oct o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4, Ap p el l an t p l ed “

N o t t ru e” t o al leg at i o n s o f p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s i n Cal i fo rn i a fo r fel o ny b u rg lary an d fel o n y p o s s es s i o n of a co n t ro l l ed s u bs t an ce. RR Vo l

. 5 , p
. 5

. On
Oct o b er 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e co u rt fo u nd th e en han cem en ts t o b e t ru e an d as s e s s ed
p u n i s hm en t at 1 5 y ears co nfi n em en t

. CR 7 8

. Ap p el l an t ti m el y fi led a n o t i c e o f
ap p eal o n Oct ob er 2 1 , 2 0 14 . CR 8 1

.

I s s ues Pres ented
W h et h er t he o ffen s e o f u n au t h o ri zed u s e o f a v eh i cl e h as t h e m en s rea at t ach

t o t h e ci r c u m s t an ce of l ack o f effect i v e co n s en t , req u iri n g t h e St at e t o p ro v e t h e d efen d an t k n ew h e d i d n o t h av e t h e o wn er’ s co n s en t t o u s e t h e v eh i cl e. W h et h er th e ev id en ce i s s u ffi ci en t t o es t a b l i s h b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u bt
wh et h er t h e d efen d an t h ad an y awaren es s h i s u s e o f t he v eh i cl e was wi t h o u t t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er. W h et h er th e t ri al co u rt co m m i ts erro r b y i n cl u d in g “ n at u re o f t h e res u l t ”
l an g u ag e i n a ju ry ch arg e fo r an o ffen s e t h at o n l y has t h e co n du ct el em en t s o f n at u re

8o f co n du ct an d n at u re o f ci rcu m s t an ces
.

W h et h er it i s i n cu rab l y p reju d i ci al fo r t h e St at e to arg u e t o t h e ju ry t h at i t o n l y

n eed ed t o fi n d wh et h er th e d efen d an t kn o w i n g l y o p erat ed t he v eh icl e an d wh et h er

s u ch op erat i o n was wi t h o u t t h e o wn er’ s effect i v e co n s en t

. W h et h er t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject t o a ch arg e t h at

ex p an d ed t h e m en s rea o f t h e o ffen s e an d fo r fai l i n g t o ob ject to t h e p reju d i ci al ju ry
arg u m en t b y

t h e St at e t h at m i s -s t at ed t h e el em en ts o f t h e o ffen s e.

Sta tem ent o f Fa cts
Un d er l yi n g f a ct s On J an u ary 2 , 2 01 4 , Mary Say l o r’ s h u s b an d s u ffered a h eart at t ack an d d ro v e h i m s el f t o t h e h o s p i t al , u s i n g her Fo rd Ran g er. RR Vo l

. 4, p
. 3 2

. He was at t h at
h o s p it al fo r ab o u t 4 5 m i n u t es b efo re an am b u l an ce to o k h i m t o Sp o h n Sh o rel i n e. RR
Vo l

. 4 , p
. 2 4 , l l

. 17 -2 5

. Mary Say l o r was g iv en al l o f h er h u s ban d ’ s cl ot h es an d
b el o n g i n gs
. RR Vo l

. 4 , p. 2 4 , l l. 1 -6

. Sh e t h i n k s s h e pu t hi s k ey s i n t h e jack et , wh i ch

s h e l eft i n h er Fo rd Ran g er , b u t s h e n ev er ch eck ed t o s ee if t h ey s tay ed th ere. RR
Vo l

. 4 , p . 2 5 , l l . 1 5 -2 5

. On J an u ary 4 , 2 0 1 4 , M s
. Say l o r wen t to Sp o h n Sh orel i n e h o sp i t al t o v i s i t h er h u s b an d i n t h e m o rn i n g an d t he ev en i n g. RR Vo l. 4 , p
. 1 4

. On t h e ev en i n g v i s i t , s h e

9t o o k t h e j ack et o u t o f t h e Ran ger t o t ak e t o h i m i n t h e h o s p i t al , an d s h e t h i n k s t h e

k ey s m i g ht h av e fal l en o u t t hen wi t h o u t h er h eari n g t h em
. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 20 , l l

. 1 -1 5.
W h en s h e ret u rn ed t o t h e p ark i n g g arag e i n t h e ev en i ng , s h e d i s co vered h er Fo rd
Ran ger was g o n e. RR Vo l

. 4, p
. 1 5 , l l

. 1 -8

. Sh e wen t b ack in t o t h e ho s p i t al t o rep o rt
t h e th eft o f t h e v eh i cl e. R R Vo l

. 4 , p
. 2 6, ll

. 1 7 -2 4

. Ho s pi t al s ecu ri t y cal l ed t h e
p o l i ce, bu t M s
. Say l o r wen t ho m e i ns t ead o f wai t i n g fo r th e p ol i ce t o arri v e. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 2 7 , l l

. 1 -6

. Sh e n ev er s h o wed p o l i ce t h e p l ace wh ere t h e v eh icl e h a d b een
p ark ed an d wo u ld hav e had t o t ak e t h em t h ere b u t d i d n ’ t

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 2 8, l l

. 1 -1 4.
Ho s pi t al p ark i n g g arag e s ecu ri t y cam era vi d eo was n ev er p ro du ced . RR Vo l . 4 , p
. 2 2 , l l

. 9 -1 4

. Ms

. Say l or co ul d o n l y t es t i fy s h e t h o ug h t h er h u s b an d ’ s k ey s m i g h t h av e fal l en o u t o f h is jack et wh en s h e was t ak i n g i t t o h er h u s b an d

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 1 0 , l l

. 1 0 -1 5.
On J an u ary 5 , 2 0 1 4 , J o el Si l v a s aw a m an u s e s om et h i n g t h at d i d n’ t l o o k l i k e

a key t o en t er a p ark ed v eh i cl e i n a Co rp u s Ch ri st i H EB p ark i n g l o t

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p p. 3 4

- 3 5

. He s aw t h e m an t ak e so m e t o o l s fro m t h e v eh i cl e an d w al k t o a red Fo r d
Ran ger an d d ri v e away
. R R V o l

. 4 , p
. 3 5, l l

. 2 -9

. He cal l ed t h e p o l i ce an d g av e a d es cri p t io n o f t h e v eh i cl e t h e m an was d ri v i n g , in cl ud i ng a l i cen s e p l at e nu m b er. RR
Vo l

. 4 , p . 3 6 , l l . 2 -1 2

. Offi cer Do ug l as M ay res p o n d ed to t h e cal l an d s aw a red Fo rd Ran g er wi t h a

10m at ch i n g l i cen s e pl at e leav i n g t h e H EB p ark in g l o t as h e ap p ro ach ed

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p p.

4 1 -4 2. H e fo l lo wed t he v eh icl e b efo re p ul l i n g i t o v er
. R R V o l

. 4 , p
. 42 , l l

. 1 0 -2 3.
He arres t ed t h e d ri v er, wh o was Ch ri s t o p h er Si eb ert

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 4 3, ll

. 1 -5 ; p
. 4 7,
l l

. 2 2 -2 5

. Offi cer M ay d i d n ot recal l an y d am ag e to th e v e h i cl e d o o r o r lo ck s
. RR
Vo l

. 4 , p
. 5 5 , l l

. 5 -6

. He d id recal l n o t i n g th e v eh icl e h ad th e k ey i n t h e i g n i t i o n
. RR
Vo l

. 4 , p
. 5 9 , l l

. 3 -1 7

. Th i s was an i m p o rt an t fact fo r h i m t o n o t e fo r p u r p o s es o f
l et t i n g i n v es t i gat o rs k n o w t h e car had n o t b een j ack ed o r ho t wi red

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 6 0,
l l

. 1 -7

. Si n ce a p ers o n was fo un d op erat i n g t h e v eh i cl e th at h ad b een rep o rt ed s t o l en , p o l i ce m ad e n o effo rt to d et erm i n e i f an y o n e el s e h ad u s ed t h e v eh i cl e i n t h e l as t 1 8
h o u rs or ho w it was t ak en fro m t h e Sp o h n Sh orel in e p ark i n g g arag e. RR Vo l . 4 , p. 5 6 , l l

. 4 -1 8

. Th e Fo rd Ran g er co n t ai n ed s t oo l s t h at h ad b een t ak en fro m t h e v eh i cl e i n t h e H EB park i n g l o t , b u t i t h ad n o t hi n g l i k e a s li m ji m t o fo rce en t ry i n t o o t h er

v eh icl es . RR Vo l . 4 , p . 5 4 , l l . 1 -1 8

. M r. Si eb ert was arres ted an d t ran sp o rt ed d o wn t o wn
. Th e v eh i cl e an d i t s

co n ten t s were i n ven t o ri ed , b u t t h e i n v en t o ry was n o t pro d u ced at t ri al

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p. 5 9 -6 0.

Pr o ced ur a l h i st o r

y A g ran d ju ry in d i ct ed M r. Si eb ert o n M arch 1 3 , 2 0 1 4 , fo r un au t h o ri zed u s e o f

11a v eh i cl e. CR 5

. On M ay 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e St at e fi l ed a n o t ice o f i n t en t t o en h an ce

p u n i s h m en t wi t h two p ri o r fel on y co n v i ct io ns fro m Cal i fo rn ia. CR 9

. O ri g i n al t ri al

co u ns el Vero n ica Garza fi l ed a M o t i o n t o W i t h d raw, an d t h e t ri al co u rt on J u l y 1 0,
2 0 1 4 , ap po i n t ed Gab ri el Sal ai s t o rep res en t Ap p el l an t

. CR 1 8 , 2 2

. On Sep t em b er 8,
2 0 1 4 , th e St at e fi l ed a s eco n d n o t i ce o f ex t ran eo u s o ffen s es t h at m ay b e offered a t
t ri al . CR 3 2 -3 3.
On Sep t em

ber 9 , 2 0 1 4 , a ju ry was ch o sen , an d Ap p el lan t el ect ed fo r t h e co u rt
t o as s es s p u n is h m en t . CR 3 7 , 4 1 . Du ri n g ju ry arg u m en t , t h e St at e arg u ed : We h av e t o p ro v e th at h e i n t en t i o n al l y o r kn o w i n g ly o p erat ed a m o t o r v eh i cl e. W e d o n 't h av e t o p ro v e t h at h e i n t en ti o nal l y o r k no wi n g l y st ol e t h e m o t o r v eh i cl e.
RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 84 , 1 l

. 1 4-1 7. Th e St at e t h en s ai d it h ad t o p ro v e t h e o wn er’ s l ack o f

co n sen t

. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 8 5 , l l

. 9 -1 3

. Th e St at e t h en rep eat ed i t s as s ert io n t hat i t o n l y

n eed ed t o s h o w k no wi n g an d i nt en t i o n al o perat io n : W e h av e t o p u t p ro v e t hat t h e Defen d an t , o n t h i s d at e i n Nu eces Co un t y , Tex as , i nt en t i on al l y

o r k n o wi n gl y o perat ed -- n o t s t o l e, n o t t o o k . W e o n l y

h av e t o p ro v e o p erat i o n an d y o u s aw i t wi th y ou r o wn ey es t h at h e was i n t en t i o n al ly o p erat in g t h at v eh i cl e, o k ay ? So I d on 't wan t y o u t o b e co n fu s ed b y wh at t h i s cas e i s n o t . W h at t h i s cas e i s n o t i s a referen du m o n t h e p o li ce d ep art m en t 's fo ren s i c p ol i cy , ri gh t ? Th i s cas e i s n o t a co n v ers at io n ab o u t wh et h er t h e d et ect i ve co u l d h av e d o n e m o re, wh et h er h e d i d l es s t h an h e s h o u l d o f. It ' s n o n e o f t h o s e t h i n gs . Th i s cas e i s wh et h er Ch ri s t o p h er Si eb ert h ad t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f M ary Say l o r an d s he t ol d y o u u n eq u i v ocal l y

12o n t h at wi t n es s s t an d , wh at , t h at s he d i d n 't g i ve h i m effect i v e co n s en t , o k ay ? An d b y l o g i cal ex t en s io n, effect i v e co n s en t i s wh at ? It 's co ns en t t h at ' s g i v en b y a p ers on t h at ' s l eg al l y au t h ori zed t o act fo r s o m eo n e. Di d y o u h ear i n t h e ev i d en ce t h at a p ers o n l eg al l y

au t h o ri zed t o act fo r t h e o wn er g av e co n s en t ? No , y o u d i d n 't . So wh at t h i s cas e i s n ot i s a cas e wh ere t h ere's effect i v e co n s en t , b ecau se t he o n e p ers o n wh o co u l dn 't g i v e t he co n s en t t o l d y ou wi t h h er o wn m o u t h t h at s h e d i d n o t g i v e t h at co n s en t

. RR Vo l . 4 , p p . 8 5 -8 6

. T h e St at e co n t i n u ed wi t h s ev eral o t h er referen ces t o Ap pel l an t k no w i n g l y

o p erat i n g t h e v eh i cl e an d to M s
. Say l o r n o t gi v in g co n sen t , b u t each t i m e o m i t t ed to refer t o an y ev i d en ce t h at wo u l d ev en t en d t o s h o w Ap p el l an t h ad an y awaren es s o f

t h e l ack o f M s . Say l or’ s co n s en t . RR Vo l . 4 , p p
. 8 7 -8 8

. Defen s e co u n s el d i d n o t o b ject t o t h e St at e’ s h i g hl y m is l ead in g arg u m en t t h at d i rect ed t h e ju ry t o co n v i ct wi th o u t fi n d i n g Ap p el l an t k new t h ere was no effect i v e

co n sen t t o u s e th e v eh i c l e
. Ho wev er, Defen s e co u n s el d i d arg u e t here was n o

ev i d en ce s h o wi n g h e k n owi n g l y o r i n t en t i o n al l y d i d i t wi t h o u t t h e o wn er’ s effect i v e

co n sen t

. RR Vo l. 4 , p
. 9 2 , l l

. 1 3 -2 2

. Th e St at e res p o nd ed wi t h an o t h er arg u m en t t h at
i t o nl y h ad t o sh o w k n o wi n g an d i n t en t i on al o p erat i on o f t h e v eh i cl e b y t h e d efen d an t . RR Vo l . 4 , p . 9 3 , l l . 1 8 -2 5

. Th e ju ry fo un d Ap p el l an t g u i l t y
. CR 69

. Th e co u rt reces s ed fo r a PSI, h el d a

13s e p arat e p u n i s h m en t h eari n g , fo u n d t he en h an cem en t s t o b e tru e, an d s en t en ced

Ap p el l an t t o 1 5 y ears co n fi nem en t . CR 7 8

.

Sum m a ry o f the Arg um ent
Th e ev id en ce t o s u p p o rt a cri m in al co nv i ct i o n m u s t b e s u ch t h at a rat i on al t ri er

o f fact can fi n d al l el em en t s b ey o n d a reas on ab l e d o u b t

. Un au t h o ri zed u s e o f a veh i cl e h as t wo co n d u ct el em en t s

– nat u re o f th e co n d u ct (o p erat i ng a veh i cl e) an d n at u re o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces (l ack of effect iv e co ns en t o f t h e

o wn er). T h e m en s r e a ( know i n g l y o r i n t en ti o n al l y ) at t ach es to bo t h co n d u ct el em en t s
. Kn o w l ed g e an d i n t en t m ay b e i n ferred fro m th e ci rcu m s t an ces , b u t th ere m u s t b e s o m e ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch a ju ry can rat i o n al l y i n fer k n owl ed g e or i n t en t

. Un ex p l ai n ed p o s s es s io n o f s t o l en p ro pert y al o n e i s i n su ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a fi n d i n g

o f k n o wl ed g e o f t h e th eft

. Th ere was n o t h i n g ab o ut t h e v eh i cl e t h at dem o n s t rat ed to

an o b ject i v e o b serv er t h at i t h ad b een s t ol en o r was b ei n g u sed wi t h o u t t h e t ru e

o wn er’ s p erm i s s i on
. A rat i o n al ju ry co u l d n o t co n cl u de b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

t h at Ap p el l an t k new h e d i d n o t h av e t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er. A co u rt eg reg i o u s l y errs wh en i t i n cl u d es m en s rea el em en t s i n t h e ch arg e t h at

are n o t p art o f t he o ffen s e. Ad d i n g a n i n s tru ct i on o n t h e “ n at u re o f t h e res u l t ” t o a ch arg e of a n o n -res u l t o ri en ted o ffen s e was a m i s d i rect i o n o n t h e l aw t h at was l i k el y

14t o in

ju re t h e d efen d an t ’ s ri g h ts b y ex p an d i n g i n t h e ju ry ’ s m i n d t h e ran g e o f fact s t h at

wo u l d p erm i t a v erd i ct o f g u il t y
. Th e St at e co m

m i t s preju d i ci al ju ry

arg u m en t w hen i t m i s -s t at es t he el em en t s

o f t he o ffen s e t o m ak e o ne el em en t d is ap p ear. In t h i s cas e, th e St at e arg u ed at l en g th

t h at i t o n l y h ad to s h ow k n o wi n g o p erat i o n o f t h e v eh i cl e w i t ho u t referen ce to wh et h er t h e d efen d an t h ad k n owl ed g e t h e u s e was wi th o ut effect iv e co n s en t

. It i s b el ow t h e st an d ard o f p ro fes s i on al care t o p erm i t a ju ry t o b e c h a rg ed
reg ard i n g k n owi n g t he nat u re o f t h e r e s u l t o f c o n d u ct i n a cas e th at is no t a res u l t

o ri en t ed o ffen s e an d t o p erm i t t h e St at e t o arg u e a d efi n i t i o n o f t h e o ffen s e t h at o m i t s

a n eces sary el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e. Defen s e co u ns el reco g n i zed t h e k ey i s su e i n t h e

cas e was wh et her th ere w as ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch t he j u ry co u l d in fer Ap p el l an t h ad
k n o wl ed g e o r awaren es s t h at th e v eh i cl e was b ei n g u s ed wi t h o u t th e o wn er’ s co n s en t

. Th ere can be n o reas o n ab l e t ri al s t rat eg y t o ju s t i fy al l o wi n g t h e ju ry t o h av e a ch arg e
t h at co n fu s es t h e m en s rea el em en t s an d al lo wi n g t h e St at e t o arg u e t he ju ry d o es n ot
h av e t o fi n d A p pel l an t was aware t h e v eh i cl e was bei n g u s ed wi t h o u t t h e o wn er’ s

co n sen t . Th e p reju d i ci al effect o f t h e i m p ro p er ch arg e an d ju ry

arg u m en t was s u ch

t h at co n fi d en ce i n t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al i s u nd erm i n ed

.

15Arg um ent

I . The ev i dence i s i ns uffi ci ent to s uppo rt the co nv icti o n. A. S t a n d ar d o f r evi ew W h en d e c i d i n g wh et h er ev i d en ce is s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a co nv i ct i o n, a

rev i ewi n g co urt m

u st as s es s al l t h e ev id en ce i n t h e l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct
t o det erm i n e wh et h er an y rat i on al t ri er o f fact co u l d fi n d t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f t h e cri m e as ch arg ed i n t h e i n d ict m en t b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e do u b t

. Ja cks o n v. Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U.S. 3 0 7, 3 1 8-1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Ho o p er v. S t a t e , 2 1 4 S.W .3 d 9, 1 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 7 ). Th i s s t an dard o f rev i e w ap p l i es to cas es i n v o l v in g b ot h d irect an d
ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i den ce. Ki n g v. S t a t e , 8 9 5 S.W .2 d 70 1 , 7 0 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p. 1 9 9 5 ).
Al t h o u g h t h e co urt o f ap p eal s i s t o co n s i d er al l ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al , i t m ay n ot re-wei g h t h e ev i d en ce an d su b st i t u t e i t s ju d g m en t fo r t h at o f t h e j u ry
. Ki n g v. S t a t e , 2 9 S.W .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 0 ). Th e t ri er o f fact is t h e ex cl u s i v e ju d g e

o f t h e cred i b i l it y o f wi t n es s es an d o f t he w ei g h t t o be g i v en t h ei r t es t i m on y , an d i t i s
t h e e x cl u s i v e p ro v in ce o f th e t ri er o f fact to reco nci l e co n fl i ct s i n t h e ev i d en ce. Mo s l ey v. S t a te , 9 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 9, 2 5 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 98 ). Ev i d en ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t un d er t h i s s t an d ard i n fo u r c i r c u m s t an ces : (1 ) t h e reco rd co n t ai n s n o

ev i d en ce p ro b at i v e o f an el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e ; ( 2 ) th e reco rd co n tai n s a m ere

" m o d i cu m " of ev i d en ce p ro b at i v e o f an el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e; (3 ) t he ev i d en ce

16co n cl u s i v el y es t ab l is h es a reas o n ab l e d o u bt ; an d (4 ) th e act s al l eg ed d o n ot co n s t i t u t e

t h e cri m i nal o ffen s e ch arg ed

. Ja cks o n , 4 43 U.S. at 3 1 4 , 31 8 n
. 1 1 , 32 0 , 9 9 S.Ct

. at
2 7 8 6 , 2 7 89 & n
. 1 1 ; W

i l l ia m s v. S t at e , 23 5 S.W

. 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 5 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 7 )
Th e l eg al s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce i s m ea s u r e d b y t h e el em en t s o f t h e

o ffen s e as d efi n ed b y a hy p o t h et i cal l y co rrect ju ry ch arg e fo r t h e cas e t h at wo u l d s et

o u t t he l aw, b e au t h o ri zed b y th e i nd i ct m en t, n o t un n eces s ari ly in creas e t he S t at e's
b u rd en o f p ro o f o r u n neces s ari l y res t ri ct t he St at e's th eo ri es o f l i ab i l i t y, an d
ad eq uat el y d es cri b e t h e p art i cu l ar o ffen s e fo r wh i ch t h e d efen d an t was t ri ed

. Ma l i k
v. S t a t e , 9 5 3 S.W .2 d 2 3 4, 2 40 (Tex .Cri m .Ap p . 1 9 9 7 ). Th i s s t an d ard ap p l i es t o b o th ju ry an d b en ch t ri al s
. Id

. H o wev er, t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce i n a b en ch t ri al
i s m eas ured b y t he ev i d en ce ad d u ced at bo t h g ui l t -i n n ocen ce an d p u n is h m en t p h as es
. Ba r fi el d v. S ta te , 6 3 S.W .3 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 2 0 0 1 ).
In v i ewi n g t h e reco rd , d i rect an d ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce are t reat ed eq u al l y ; ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i den ce i s as p ro b at i v e as d i rect ev id en ce i n es t ab l i s h i n g t h e g u i l t o f

an act or, an d ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce al o ne c a n b e s uffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h g u i l t

. Cl a yt o n v. S t a te , 2 3 5 S.W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 2 00 7 ). In d et erm i n i n g t h e

s u f f i c i e n cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, a rev i ewi n g co u rt ex am i n es " wh et h er th e n eces s ary i n feren ces are reas o n ab l e b as ed u p o n t he co m b i n ed an d c u m

u l a t i v e fo rce of al l t h e

ev i d en ce wh en v i ewed i n t h e l i gh t m os t fav orab l e t o th e v erd i ct ." Id

. (q u o t i n g

17Ho o

p er v. S t at e , 2 1 4 S.W .3 d 9 , 1 6 -1 7 ( T e x
. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 7)). Fi n al l y , t h e

" cu m u l at i v e fo rce" o f al l th e ci rcu m s t a n t i al ev id en ce can b e su ffi ci en t fo r a t ri er o f
fact t o fi n d t h e accu s ed g u i l ty b ey o n d a reas o n ab le do u b t , ev en i f ev ery fact d o es n ot

" p oi n t d i rect l y an d i n d ep en d en t l y t o t h e g u il t o f t h e accu s ed ." S ee P o wel l v. S t a t e , 1 9 4 S.W

. 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 6). H o wev er, t h e t ri er o f fact ’ s d eci s i o n

m u s t b e rat i o n al an d t h u s can n o t b e u p h el d i f it rel i es o n ev i d en ce o f p h ys i c a l
i m p o s s ib i l it i es o r s pecu l at i o n
. Kn o wl ed g e m ay be i n ferred fro m t h e act s , wo rd s , an d co n d uct o f t h e accu s ed

an d fro m t h e ci rcu m s t an ces i n wh i ch t h e p ro h ib i t ed act o ccu rred

. Her n an d ez v. S t a t e , 8 1 9 S.W

. 2 d 8 06 , 8 0 9 -1 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 1 ); Ha r t v. S t a t e , 8 9 S.W .3 d 6 1 , 6 4 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ).

Ci rcu m s t an ti al ev i d en ce i s as p ro b at i ve as d i rect ev id en ce i n es t ab l i sh i ng g u i lt , an d ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce al o n e can b e s u ffi ci en t t o es t a b l i s h g ui l t

. Ho o

p er v. S t a t e , 2 14 S.W

. 3 d 9 , 1 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 7 ). W h i l e ju ri es are p erm i t t ed to draw m u l t i p l e reas o n ab l e i n feren ces as lo n g as each i n feren ce i s s u p p o rt ed b y t h e ev i den ce p res en t ed at tri al , " ju ri es are n o t p erm i t t ed to co m e t o co n c l u s i o ns bas ed o n m ere s p ecu l at i o n o r fact u al l y u n s u p p o rt ed i n feren ces or p res u m p t i o n s." Id

. at 1 5

. " [A] n i n feren ce i s a co n cl us i o n reach ed b y co n s i d eri n g o t h er fact s an d d ed u ci n g a l o gi cal co n s eq u en ce fro m t h em ," w h i l e "[s ] p ecu lat i o n i s m ere th eo ri zi n g o r g u es s i n g a b o u t t h e p o s s i b l e m ean in g o f fact s an d ev i d en ce p res en t ed ." Id

. at 1 6. " A co ncl u s i o n reach ed by sp ecu l at i o n

. . . i s n ot s u ffi ci en t ly b as ed o n fact s o r ev id en ce t o s u pp o rt a fi nd i n g b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t ." Id

. W i n fr ey v. S t a t e , 3 9 3 S.W .3 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 1 3 ).

18In t en t m ay b e i n ferred fro m t h e act i on s o r co n d u ct o f ap p el l an t

. Ro b er t s o n v. S t a t e , 8 7 1 S.W

. 2d 7 0 1, 7 0 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 3 ); McGee v. S t a te , 7 7 4 S.W .2 d
2 2 9 , 2 3 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 19 8 9 ). Es tab l i s h m en t o f cu l p ab l e m en tal s t at es i s al m o s t
i n v ari ab l y gro u n d ed u p o n i n feren ces t o b e d rawn b y t h e fact fi n d er fro m t h e at t en d an t ci rcu m s t an ces
. La n e v. S t a te , 7 6 3 S.W

. 2 d 7 8 5 , 78 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 8 9 ). Th e
t h res ho l d o f p ro o f n eces s ary t o s u p p o rt a ju ry fi n d in g o f an awaren es s t hat s u ch a

res u l t i s reas on ab l y cert ai n t o o ccu r i s co n co m i t an t l y l o w
. Id

. Men t al cu l p ab i l i t y i s

o f s u ch a n at u re t h at i t g en eral l y m u s t b e i n ferred fro m th e ci rcu m s t an ces u n d er wh i ch

a p ro h i bi t ed act o r o m i s s i o n o ccu rs
. Her n a nd ez v. S t a t e , 8 1 9 S.W .2 d 80 6 , 8 1 0 (Tex

. Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 1).
Th e fact fi n d er’ s ab i l i t y

t o rel y o n i n feren ces i s n o t u n l i m i t ed

. Un d er t h e J ack s o n tes t , we p erm i t j u ri es t o d raw m u l t i pl e reas o n ab l e i n feren ces as l o n g as each i n feren ce i s s u p p o rt ed b y th e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al

. Ho wev er, ju ri es are n o t p erm it t ed t o co m e t o co n cl u s io ns b as ed o n m ere s p e c u l at i o n o r fact u al l y u n s u p p o rt ed i n feren ces or p res u m

p ti o n s
. To co rrect l y ap p l y t h e J ack s o n s tan d ard , i t i s v i t al t h at co u r t s o f ap p eal s un d ers tan d t h e di fferen ce b et ween a reas o n ab l e i n feren ce su p p o rt ed b y t h e ev i d en ce at t ri al , s p ecu l at io n , an d a p res u m p t i o n
. A p res u m

p t i o n i s a l eg a l i n feren ce t h at a fact ex i s t s i f t h e fact s g i v in g ri s e t o t h e p res u m pt io n are p ro v en b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t

. . . . In co n t ras t, an in feren ce i s a co n cl us i o n reach ed b y co n s i d eri ng o t h er fact s an d d ed u ci n g a lo g i cal co n s eq u en ce fro m t h em
. Sp ecu l at i o n is m ere t h eo ri zi n g or g ues s i n g ab o u t t h e p o s s ib l e m ean i n g o f fact s an d ev i d en ce p res en t ed

. A co ncl u s io n reach ed by sp ecu l at i o n m ay n o t b e co m

p let el y u n reas o n ab l e, b u t i t i s n o t s u ffi ci en t l y b as ed o n fact s o r ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt a fi n d i n g b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t

.

19As s t at ed ab o v e, ju ri es are p erm it t ed to d raw m u l t i p l e r e as o n ab l e i n feren ces fro m th e ev i d en ce (d irect o r ci rcu m s t an t i al ), b ut t h ey are n o t p erm i t t ed t o d raw co n cl u s i o n s b as ed o n s pecu l at i o n
. . . Ho o p er , 2 1 4 S.W .3 d at 1 5-1 6 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 2 0 07 ) (ci t at i o n s an d fo o t n o t es

o m it t ed ).

B. Th e ch a rg ed

o f f en s e Ap p el l an t was ch arg ed wi t h u n au t ho ri zed u s e o f a v eh i cl e. CR 3

. (a) A p ers o n co m

m i t s an o ffen s e i f h e i n t en t i o n al l y o r k n o w i n g ly o p erat es an o t h er's b o at , ai rp lan e, o r m o t o r-p ro p el l ed v eh i cl e wi t h o u t th e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er.
T E X
. P E N A L C O D E A N N
. §3 1 .0 7

. Th e o ffen s e o f u n au t h o ri zed u s e o f a m o to r v eh i cl e

en co m p as s es t wo co n d u ct el em en t s
. Br u n o v. St a te , 8 4 5 S.W .2 d 9 1 0 , 9 12 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 3 ); McQu een v. S t a t e , 7 8 1 S.W .2 d 60 0 , 6 0 3 (Tex

. Cri m .Ap p. 19 8 9 )

. T h e

o ffen s e n o t o n l y req u i res "fo rb id d en co n d u ct " , b u t al s o k n o wl ed g e o f t h e " at t en d an t ci rcu m s t an ces " o f t h e o ffen s e. Br u n o , 8 45 S.W .2 d at 9 1 2 ; M cQu een , 7 8 1 S.W .2 d at
6 0 4

. Th e " fo rb i d d en co n d u ct " i s t h e k n o wi ng o p erat i o n o f t h e v eh i cl e. Br un o , 8 4 5
S.W .2 d at 9 1 2 ; McQu een , 78 1 S. W. 2 d a t 6 04

. In ord er to h av e k n o wl ed g e o f t h e

" at t en d an t ci r c u m s t an ces " , t h e d efen d an t m u st b e aware t h at t h e o p erat i o n o f t h e

v eh icl e is wi t h o ut t he own er's co n s en t

. Br u n o , 8 4 5 S.W .2 d at 9 1 2 ; McQu een , 7 8 1
S.W .2 d at 6 0 4

.

20C. Th e evi den ce i s i n s u f f i ci en t t o s u p p or t i n f er en ce o f g ui l t Th e St at e sh o wed M s
. Say l o r’ s v eh icl e was t ak en wi th o ut h er p erm i s s i o n fro m
t h e p ark i ng garag e at Sp o hn Sh o rel i ne i n t h e earl y ev en in g of J an u ary 4 , 2 0 1 5

. Th e St at e s h o wed Ap p el l an t was f o u n d o p erat i ng t h e v eh i cl e i n a di fferen t p art o f t o wn i n th e aft ern o o n o f J an u ary 5 , 2 0 1 5

. Th ere w as n o ev i d en ce of a fo rced en t ry o f t h e

v eh icl e– n o d am ag e t o t h e do o r, wi n do w, l ock , o r i g n i t i o n
. T here was no t h i n g v i s i b l e
t o l et an o b

ject i v e p ers o n co n c l u d e t h e v eh i cl e h ad b een t ak en wi t h o ut t h e o wn er’ s
p erm i s s i o n . Th e o n l y

fact o r t o s u g g es t Ap pel l an t m i g h t h av e h ad an awaren es s t h e

u s e was wi t h o u t co n s en t was t he fact h e was i n p o ss es s i o n o f t he v eh i cl e. W i t h o u t an y t h i n g t o s u g g es t t o an o b j ect i v e o ccu p ier of th e v eh i cl e t h at i t h ad
b een t ak en wi t h o ut t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er, t h e ev i d en ce i s i n s u ffi ci en t fo r
a rat i o nal ju ry t o fi n d b ey on d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t t h at Ap p el l an t k n ew h i s op erat i o n

o f t h e v eh i cl e was wi t h o ut t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er. Acco rd i n g l y, t h e ju d g m en t s h o u l d b e rev ers ed an d an acq u i t t al o rd ered

.

I I . The tri a l co urt co m m i tted eg reg ri o us ly ha rm ful erro r by cha rg ing the jury co n c e r n i n g a co nduct el em ent tha t i s no t an el em ent of the o ffens e, thus ex pa ndi ng the defi ni ti o n o f the o ffens e bey o n d tha t s et o ut i n the s ta tute a nd perm i tti ng a fi ndi ng o f g ui l t ba s ed o n i no ffens i v e co nduct.

21A. Co n d u ct el emen t s i n g en er a l
Th e co u rt of cri m i nal ap p eal s h as reco gn i zed t hat s ect i o n 6 .0 3 o f t he p en al co d e d el i n eat es th ree "co nd u ct el em en t s " th at m ay b e i n v o l v ed i n an o ffen s e: (1 ) t h e n at u re

o f t h e co n d u ct ; (2 ) t h e res u l t o f t h e co n d u ct ; an d (3 ) t h e ci rcu m s t an ces su rro u n d i n g
t h e co n du ct

. McQu een v. S t a t e , 7 81 S .W .2 d 6 0 0, 6 0 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p. 1 9 8 9 ); s ee
T E X
. P E N A L C O D E A N N
. § 6 .0 3 (a), (b ) (Vern o n 2 0 0 3). An o ffen s e m ay co n t ai n an y

o n e o r m o re o f th es e " co n d u ct e l e m e n t s " t h at al o n e, o r in co m b i n at i o n fo rm , t h e

o v eral l beh av i o r t h at o u r leg i s l a t u r e h as i n t en ded t o cri m i nal i ze, an d it i s t h o s e

es s en t i al " co n d u ct el em en t s " to wh ich a cu lp ab l e m en t al st at e m u st ap p l y
. McQu een , 7 8 1 S.W .2 d at 6 03

. Th e co u rt ’ s ch arg e i n cl u ded l an g u ag e al l o wi n g t h e m en s rea t o at t ach t o 1 ) t h e

res u l t o f th e co n d u ct , 2 ) t h e n at u re o f t h e co n d u ct , or 3) t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

s u rro u n d i n g t h e co n d u ct

. Th erefo re, th e t ri al co u rt erred b ecau s e i t d i d no t l i m i t t h e

s t at u to ry d efi n i t i o n s o f " i n ten t i o n al l y " or " k n o wi n g l y " t o t h e res pect i v e cu l p ab l e

m en t al s t at e req u ired fo r a n at u re o f t he c o n d u c t a n d n at ure o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

o ffen s e. S

ee Co ok v. S t a te , 8 8 4 S.W .2 d 48 5 , 4 9 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 4 ) (" It i s erro r fo r a t ri al ju d g e to n o t l i m i t t h e d efi n i t i o n s o f t h e cu l pab l e m en t al s t at es as t h ey rel at e
t o t he co n d u ct el em en t s i n v o lv ed i n t h e p art i cu lar o ffen s e." ).
Th e “ res u l t ” o f an o ffen s e i s t h e i n ju ry t o p ers on o r l o s s o r d am ag e t o p ro p ert y

22t h at d efi n es as s au l t i ve or d es t ru ct i v e o ffen s es
. S e e , e
. g ., Jef

f er so n v. St a t e , 1 8 9
S.W .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) (g rav am en o f as s au l t i v e o ffen s es i s res u l t

o f b o d i l y i n

ju ry ). Ho wev er, t h ere i s n o su ch res ul t co n d uct el em en t i n au t h ori zed u s e

o f a v e h i c l e as an y d am ag e t o t h e v eh i cl e i s i rrel ev an t t o wh et her t h e v eh i cl e was k n o wi n g l y u s ed b y

a p ers o n wh o k n o ws t h e o wn er d i d n o t g i v e effect i v e co n s en t

.

B. S u ch er ro r co n s t i tu t es eg r eg i ou s er r o r
. W h en , as i n th i s cas e, an accu s ed fai ls t o o bject t o t h e ch arg e, " he wi l l o b t ai n

a rev ers al o n l y i f t he erro r i s s o eg reg i o us an d creat ed su ch h arm t hat h e `h as n o t h ad

a fai r an d i m

p art ial t ri al '

— i n s ho rt `eg reg i ou s h arm .'" Al ma n za v. S t a te , 6 8 6 S.W .2 d
1 5 7 , 1 71 (Tex .Cri m .Ap p
. 19 8 5 ). Th e erro r m u s t " `g o t o t h e v ery b as i s o f t h e cas e,'"

" d ep ri v e t h e accu s ed o f a `v al uab l e ri g h t,'" o r " `v i tal l y affect h is d efen s i v e t h eo ry .'"
Id

. at 1 7 2. Th e deg ree o f h arm , s u ffi ci en t l y seri o u s t o b e cal l ed " eg reg i o u s ," i s
p res en t wh en ev er a rev i ewi n g co u rt fi n d s th e cas e fo r co n v ict i on o r p u ni s h m en t was
act u al l y m ad e cl earl y an d s i g n i fi can t l y m o re p ers u as i v e b y t h e e r r o r
. S au n d er s v. S t a t e , 8 1 7 S.W .2 d 68 8 , 69 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 1 ). E greg i ou s h arm i s a d i f f i c u l t

s t an d ard t o p ro v e an d m

u st b e d et erm i n ed o n a cas e-b y -cas e b as i s
. El li s on v. S t a t e , 8 6 S.W .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). Th e act u al d eg ree o f h arm i s as s ay ed
i n l i g h t o f t h e en t i re ju ry ch arg e, t h e st at e o f t h e e v id en ce, i n cl u d i n g th e co n t es t ed

23i s su es an d wei g h t o f p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce, t h e a r g u m en t o f co u n s el , an d an y o t h er

rel ev an t in fo rm at i o n rev ea l e d by t h e reco rd of th e t ri al as a wh ol e. Al ma n z a , 6 8 6
S.W .2 d at 1 7 1

. In t h i s cas e, t h e v eh icl e was s ho wn to h av e s u ffered d am ag e t o t he u n d ercarri ag e an d a h o l e i n t h e rad i at o r. A ju ry co ul d reas o n ab l y b el i ev e an o p erat o r o f t h e

v e h i cl e h ad k no w l ed g e o f d am ag e cau s ed t o t h e v eh i cl e du ri n g t hat o p erat i o n a n d

t h u s co nv i ct A p pel l an t b as ed o n a b el i ef th at h e k n ew h i s o p erat i o n o f t h e v eh i cl e

cau s ed d am ag e t o t h e veh i cl e. Ho wev er, cau s i n g d am ag e t o a v eh i cl e is n o t a p art o f

t h e el em en t s o f u nau t h o ri zed u s e o f a v eh i cl e, s o t h e i n s t ru ct i o n i s a m i s -d i rect i o n o f

t h e l aw, req u i ri n g rev ers al

. S ee T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 2 1 .3

.

I I I . Tri a l co uns el w as i neffecti v e fo r fa i l i ng to o bject to the cha rg e a nd to pro secuto ri a l m i s s ta tem ent o f the l a w i n cl o s i ng a rg um ent.
A. S t a n d ar d s r eg a rd i n g

co u n s el i n ef f ect i ven es s cl a ims
Bo t h t h e Un i t ed St at es Co n s t i t u t i o n an d t he T ex as Co n s t i t ut i o n g u aran t ee i n d i v i d u al s t h e ri g h t to as s i st an ce o f co u ns el i n a cri m i n al p ro s ecu t i o n
. " Th e ri g h t to

co u ns el req u i res m o re t h an th e p res en ce o f a lawy er; it n eces s ari l y req ui res t h e ri g ht

t o effect iv e as s i s t an ce." Lo p ez v. S t a t e , 3 4 3 S.W .3 d 1 3 7 , 1 43 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 1 1 ) (ci t i n g McMa n n v. Ri ch a r ds o n , 3 9 7 U.S. 7 59 , 7 7 1 n
. 1 4 , 9 0 S. Ct

. 1 4 41 , 1 4 49 (1 9 7 0 );

24Po wel l

v. Al ab a ma , 2 8 7 U.S. 4 5 , 5 7 , 5 3 S. Ct

. 5 5 , 7 7 (1 93 2 )). Ef f e c t i v e a s s i s t an ce i s n o t erro rl es s rep res en tat i o n bu t , rat h er, o b ject i v el y reas o n ab l e rep res en t at i o n
. Id

. To p rev ai l o n h i s cl ai m o f i neff e c t i v e a s s i s t an ce of co u n s el , a d efen d an t m u s t m u s t

s h o w th at : (1 ) co u n s el 's rep res e n t a t i o n fel l b el ow an ob ject i v e s tan d ard o f

reas on ab l en es s , an d (2 ) t he d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce p reju d i ced t h e d e f e n s e. Id

. ( rep eat i n g t he t es t s et ou t b y t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt i n S tr ickl a n d v
. W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U.S. 6 68 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4)).
Co u rt s o f ap p eal s m

us t m ak e a " s t ro n g p res u m p t i o n t hat co u n s el 's p erfo rm an ce fel l wi t h i n t h e wi d e ran g e of reas o n ab l y p ro fes s i o n al as s i s tan ce." R o b er t s o n v. S t a t e , 1 8 7 S.W

. 3 d 4 75 , 4 8 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 6 ); Ma r t i n ez v. S t a te , 3 1 3 S.W .3 d 3 5 8,
3 6 4 (Tex

. Ap p .-Ho us t o n [1 s t Di s t .] 2 0 0 9 , p et

. ref'd ). To o v erco m e t hat p res um p t i o n,

a d efen d an t m

u s t sh o w t h at th e ch al l en g ed act i o n co u l d n ot b e co n s i d ered s ou n d t ri al

s t rat eg y u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ce. Ma rt i nez , 3 1 3 S.W .3 d at 3 6 4 (ci t i ng S t r i ckl a n d , 4 4 6
U

. S

. at 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S. Ct

. at 2 0 6 5 ). Al l eg at i o n s o f i n effect i ven es s m u s t b e f i r m l y fo u n ded i n t h e reco rd , wh i ch m u s t d e m o n s t rat e affi rm at i v el y t h e al l eg ed
i n effect i v en es s
. Th o m

p so n v. S t a t e , 9 S.W .3 d 8 08 , 8 13 (Tex . Cri m
. Ap p. 1 9 9 9 ). If

t h e reco rd is si l en t o n t ri al co u n sel 's reas o n in g o r s trat eg y , a rev i ewi n g co urt p res u m e
t h at h is act i o n was st rat eg i c. Id

. at 8 1 4

. Th e reco rd o n di rect ap p eal rarel y p ro v i d es
t h e rev i ewi n g co u r t a n o p p o rt u n i t y t o co n d u ct a fai r ev al u at i o n o f th e m eri t s o f an

25i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m
. Ra n d o n v. S t a t e , 1 7 8 S.W .3 d 9 5, 1 0 2 (Tex

. Ap p .-Ho us t o n [1 st Di s t .] 2 0 05 , n o pet .). If t h e reco r d d o e s n o t es t ab li s h t h at t ri al

co u ns el 's co n d u ct fel l b el o w reas o n ab l e pro fes s i o n al s t an d ard s , a rev i ewi n g co u rt i s

n o t t o s p ecu l at e t o fi n d t ri al co u n s el i n effect iv e. See W o o d v. S t a t e , 2 60 S.W .3 d 1 4 6,
1 4 8 (Tex

. Ap p .-Ho u st o n [1 s t Di s t .] 2 0 0 8, n o pet .). In t h e e v e n t th e ap p el l at e co u rt
fi nd s t he i s su e i s n o t s h o wn o n t h e reco rd , t he ap p el l an t m ay p u rs u e t he cl ai m b y way

o f a h ab eas p et i t i o n
. Ex p a r t e Br o wn , 2 0 5 S.W .3 d 53 8 , 5 46 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 6 ).
Im p ro p er cl o s i n g a r gu m en t s i ncl u d e referen ces t o fact s n o t i n ev id en ce o r i n co rrect s t at em en t s o f l aw. Ph i l l i p s v. S t a t e , 1 3 0 S.W .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 55 (Te x
. Ap p .-Ho us t o n [1 4 t h Di s t.] 2 0 0 4 ), a f f 'd , 1 9 3 S.W .3 d 90 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 2 00 6 ). Fo r

an i m p ro p er ju ry arg u m en t t o m an d at e rev ers al , it m u s t b e ex t rem e, v i o l at e a

m an d at o ry

s t at u te, o r i n

ject n ew fact s i n t o t h e reco rd

. Id

. A d efen d an t fo rfei ts hi s ri g h t t o co m p lai n o n ap peal ab o u t an i m p ro p er ju ry
arg u m en t i f h e fai ls t o o b

ject t o t h e arg u m en t o r to p urs u e h is o b ject io n to an ad v ers e

ru l i n g. Th r ea d

g i l l v. S ta t e , 1 4 6 S.W .3 d 6 5 4, 6 7 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p. 2 0 04 ). If a t ri al

co u rt s u s t ai n s an o b

ject i o n as sert i n g an i m

p ro p er ju ry arg u m en t , t o p res erv e erro r o n
ap p eal , th e co m

p l ai n in g p art y m

u s t ad d i t i o nal l y re q u e s t a n i n s tru ct i o n to d i s reg ard

an o ffen d i n g arg u m en t i f s u ch an i n s t ru ct i o n co u l d cu re t h e p reju d i ce. McGi n n v. S t a t e , 9 6 1 S.W .2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 8 ). If t h e p reju d i ce ari s i n g fro m an

26erro neo u s ju ry arg u m en t i s i n cu rab l e, t h e co m p l ai n i n g p art y m

u s t m o ve fo r a m i s t ri al

. Id

.

B. Ap

p l i ca t i o n
In t h i s cas e, t h e St at e arg u ed at l en g t h t h at i t o n l y h ad t o p ro v e: 1 ) Ap p el l an t k n o wi n g ly

u s ed t h e v eh i cl e, an d
2 ) t h e u se was wi th o u t effect i v e co n s en t.
Th e St at e m ad e s ev eral s t at em e n t s t h at i t d i d n o t h av e t o s h o w Ap p el l an t s t o l e t h e

v eh icl e. RR Vo l

. 4 , p
. 8 4 , l l

. 1 4 -1 7 ; p p. 8 5 -8 6 ; p
. 9 3 , l l

. 1 8

- 2 5

. Ap p el l an t ’ s t ri al

co u ns el fai l ed t o o b

ject t o t h e arg um en t o r as k fo r a m i s t ri al d u e t o i n cu rab l y
p r e j u d i c i a l arg u m en t. By arg u i n g i t o n ly h ad t o s h o w Ap p el l an t k n ew h e was

o p erat i n g t h e v eh i cl e, t h e St at e m is -s t at ed t he l aw co n cern i n g t h e e l e m en t s o f t h e

o ffen s e. It t h u s l ed t h e ju ry t o b el i ev e i t co ul d co n v i ct wi t h o u t fi rs t fi n d in g Ap p el l an t
k n ew t h e u s e o f t h e v eh i cl e was wi t h o u t t h e effect i v e co n s en t o f t h e o wn er. H o wev er,
t h e co m p l ai n t was n ot p res erv ed fo r ap p eal , d es pi t e b ei n g cl earl y p r e j u d i ci al
arg u m en t t h at ex p an d ed t h e m et h o d b y wh i ch t he ju ry

co u ld fi n d Ap pel l an t g u i l t y
. Th i s was t h e en t i re defen s e o f t h e cas e– wh et h er Ap p el l an t was aware t h e u s e

o f t h e v eh i cl e was wi t h o ut co n s en t

. To l et t h e St at e ex p l ai n t h e el em en t s t o rem o v e
t h at k ey el em en t of t h e cas e wi t h o u t o b ject i o n w as cl earl y p erfo rm an ce b el o w t h e

27s t an d ard o f care an d cau se p reju d ice o f s u ch a d eg ree t h at co n fi d en ce i n th e o u t co m e

o f t h e t r i a l i s u n d erm i n ed

. Th i s fai l ure was co m p o u n d ed b y th e fai l u re i n al l o wi n g
t h e co u rt t o m i s -d i rect t h e ju ry wi t h a ch arg e t h at i n cl u d ed i n st ru ct i o n o n k n owi n g t h e

res u l t o f t h e co n d uct , an el em en t t h at i s n o t p art o f th e o ffen s e o f u nau th ori zed u s e o f

a v eh i cl e. As a res u l t , Ap p el l an t was co n v i ct ed by a ju ry t h at was g iv en a co n fu s i n g ch arg e an d an ex p l an at i o n b y t h e St at e t h a t e n d e d t h e co n fu si on b y el i m i n at i n g a

n eces s ary el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e. Ap p el l an t was co n v i ct ed o n a ch arg e t ha t im p erm i s s i b l y ex p an d ed t h e m en s rea

u n d er w h i ch h e co u l d be fo u n d g u i l t y an d aft er t h e ju ry h ad beat en i n t o it s co l l ect i v e

s k u l l t hat i t d i d n o t n eed t o fi n d Ap p el l an t h ad k n o wl ed g e h e was u s i n g t h e v eh i cl e wi t h o u t t he o wn er’ s effect i v e co n s en t

. Tri al co u n sel was aware t h e cru ci al i s s u e in

t h e cas e was t h e l ack o f d i rect ev i d en ce o f an y awaren es s t h e u se o f th e v eh i cl e was

n o n -co n s en s u al ; h o wev er, h e fai l ed t o o b ject to t he ch arg e o r t o t h e p r o s ecu to rs ’
arg u m en t t h at n eg at ed th e cru ci al i s s u e o f t h e m en s rea o f t he ci rcu m s t an ces
. Th ere

can b e n o co n cei v ab le t ri al s t rat eg y t o p erm i t t h e ch arg e t o ex p an d t h e s co pe o f t h e

o ffen s e o r t o al l o w t h e St at e t o arg u e t hat an es s en ti al el em en t o f th e o ffen s e was n ot

an el em en t i t n eed ed t o p ro v e. Ap p el l an t was s o sev erel y p reju d i ced b y t ri al co u n s el ’ s fai lu re to ob ject t o t h e ch arg e an d t h e ev i d en ce t hat co n fi d en ce i n t h e o u tco m e i s u n d erm in ed , an d t h e

28ju d g m en t s h o u l d b e rev ers ed an d a n ew t ri al o rd ered

.

Pra y er Ap p el l an t Ch ri st o p er Si eb ert res p ect fu l l y req u es t s t hi s Ho n o rab l e C o u rt to

rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t o f t he co u rt b el o w an d o rd er an acq u it t al

. Al t ern at i v el y , Ap p el l an t res p ect fu l l y req u es t s t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt t o rev ers e th e ju d g m en t o f t h e
t ri al co u rt an d rem an d fo r a n ew t ri al

. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed , / s/ Do n a l d B. Ed

wa rd s Do n al d B. Ed ward s St at e Bar No

. 0 6 4 6 9 0 5 0 Law Offi ce o f Do n al d B. Ed ward s P.O. Bo x 3 3 0 2 Co rp u s Ch ri st i , TX 7 84 6 3-3 3 0 2 (3 6 1 ) 8 87 -7 0 0 7 (3 6 1 ) 8 87 -7 0 0 9 (fax ) At t o rn ey fo r Ap p el l an t
Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl ia nce a nd Serv ice I, D o n al d B. Ed ward s , cert ify t hat t h is b ri ef co n tai n s 4 , 7 8 9 w o rd s i n t h o s e m at t ers n o t ex em

p t ed u n d er Ru l e 9 . A co py o f t h i s b ri ef i s b ei n g d el iv ered o n M ay 2 6 , 2 0 1 5 , v i a co p y fo rward i ng s erv i ce o f t h e el ect ro ni c fi l i n g s y s t em to M r. Do u g No rm an at h i s em ai l a d d r es s es o f d o ug l as
. n o rm an @ n ueces co .co m an d d o u g l as
. n o rm an @co .n u eces .t x .u s
. / s / Do n a l d B. Ed wa r d s Do n al d B. Ed ward s

29