Opinion filed Jun e 11 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 02 78 -CR

____ ____ __ ELISE LLO U SEV IO DE LAO , A ppellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 132nd District Court

Scurry County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9363

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted E lisello Usevio DeL ao of a g g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon and
a sse sse d h is p un ish me nt at c on fi ne me nt f or fi ve y e a rs . We dis mis s th e a

pp e a l. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed c ounsel h a s f il e d a mo ti o n to w it h d raw . The motion is supported by a br ie f in w hic h c ouns e l pr of e ssi on a lly and c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xami ne s th e re c or d a

nd a pp lic a ble law and states that he ha s conclude d that the appe al is frivolous. I n his brief, c ounsel prese nts two possibl e issues. F irst, counsel examines the trial cour t’s de nia l of a pp e lla nt’ s r e qu e st f

or a se pa rate ins tr uc tio n o n th e de fi nit ion

of se ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y in the jury char g e. As c ounsel notes and a s the trial cour t noted in its ruling , the def inition of serious2

bo dil y inj ur y wa s inc lud e d in the de fi nit ion of de a dly we a po n co nta ine d in the c ha

rg e . Thi s p os sib le issue is overrule d. I n the next possi ble i ssue, counsel examines the t rial court’s denial of a ppellant’s re quest for the lesser included off

ense of Class A m i s d em ea n o r assault i n the cha rg e to the jury . Counsel
corr ectly states the test for

deter mining whe ther a lesser included off ense should be submitted to the jury : the lesser included offe nse must be included within the proof ne cessa ry to establish the char g ed offe nse and there must be some proof that, if the defe ndant is g uilty , he is g uilty only of the lesse r included off

ense. Ro us se au v . S

tate , 85 5 S.W. 2d 66 6, 67 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Ro y ste r v . S tate , 6 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d

4 4 2 , 4 4 6

- 4 7 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 81 ); see al so Flore s v . S tate , 245 S.W .3d 432, 439 (T e x. Cr im . App . 2 00 8) ; Ha ll v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 524, 536 (Tex. Crim App. 2007). Our re view of the re cord suppor

ts counsel’s conclusion that the only evidenc e of the commission of the alleg ed
a ssa ult inv ol ved app ell ant’s us e of a mot or ve hic le and

that th e re is n o e vid e nc e of an a ssa ult
oc c ur ri ngwi tho ut t

he us e of the mot or

ve hic le . Co un se l c or

re c tly c on c lud e s that the re is no via ble appellate issue challeng ing the trial court’ s denial of the r equest for an instruction on a lesse r included off

ense. This possible issue is overr uled. Couns e l ha s p ro vid e d ap pe lla nt wit h a cop y of the br ie f an d advis e d ap pe lla nt of his ri g ht t o revie w the re cord a

nd file a r esponse to counse l’s brief. A response has bee n filed. Court-appointed counsel ha s complied with the requir ements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 3 8 6 U

. S. 7 3 8 (1967); In re Sc hulman , 25 2 S.W. 3d 40 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Sta ffo rd v . S tate , 8 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Hi

gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App . 1 97 8) ; Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W. 2d 68 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Ea de n v . S

tate , 161 S.W .3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.)

. I n his pro se re sponse, appe llant contends that the trial court err ed by neither disqualify

ing
no r r e c us ingits e lf

, b y no t c omp lyingwi th a

mot ion fo r d isc ov e ry , b y

a dmi tti ngState ’s Exhi bit No s . 7 an d

8 , b y al l o wi n g t es t i m o n y

ap p el l an tal l ege s wa s fi ct i o n , an d b y n o ts u b m i t t i n g a c h ar ge
on a le sse r inc lud e d off

e ns e . T he re c or d b e fo re thi s c ourt do e s n ot s up po rt

a pp e lla nt’ s c on te nti on s. Appellant filed a

motion for the trial j u d ge to be disqualified on the g rounds that the trial judge had pre viously

serve d as the district attorne y in th e o ff

en s e alleg ed in the enha nceme nt para g raph of

the indictment. A motion to rec use was not filed. Relying on Ha tho rn e v . S tate , 459 S.W .2d 826 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1 9 7 0 ), the trial cour t overrule d the motion to dis qualify . The trial court rule d corr ectly . T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . a rt . 3 0. 01 (V e rn on

20 06 ); Gr iff

in v . S tate , 4873

S.W. 2d 81 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Hathorne, 459 S.W .2d at 829; Br own v . S tate , 108 S.W .3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2003, pet. re f’d)

. Ap p e ll an t c o mp la in s th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt v io late d

h is mo ti o nf

o r d is c o v e r y . T h e r ecor d contains no ruling on this mot ion. Moreover , the re cord a ffirm at i v ely ref lects that appe llant was provided with copie s of S tate’s Ex hibit Nos. 7 and 8. Fur ther, the rec ord re flec ts no rever sible err or in any delay

that may have oc curr ed in appe llant securingcopies of State’ s Ex hibit Nos. 7 and 8 or in t he State ’s pr od

uc tio n o f t

he re c or din g of

the 9- 1- 1 c a ll. Appellant co n t ends t hat the trial c ourt err ed by allowing Sny der Rese rve Police O ffice r Gilbert Ramos to testify

conce rning oral stateme nts appellant made to Office r Ramos. Appellant contends that he never

made those state ments and that Offic er Ramos’s testimony was fic tion. The jury was the sole f

inder of f act a nd, as such, wa s fre e to accept or reje ct any or all of Off icer Ramos’s te stimony . T EX
. C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 36.13 (V ernon 2007) , art. 38.04 (V ernon 1979)

. A p p e l l an t ’ s ar g u m e n ta t t e mp t s t o i n v a d e t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y. All of appe llant’s arguments have be en conside red. Ea ch is overr uled. Following the proc edure s outlined in An de rs , we have indepe ndently revie wed the re cord,
and we a g re e that th e a

pp e a l is wi tho ut me ri t. We no te that c ouns e l ha s th e re sp on sib ili ty to a dv ise
a pp e lla nt t hat he may

fi le a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w b y

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Ex parte Owe ns , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). L ikewise, this c ourt advises a ppellant that he may

file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w pursuant to T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 66. Bl ack v. S tate , 217 S.W .3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.)

. The motion to withdraw is g rante d, and the a ppeal is dismissed.

PER C URI AM

J une 11, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.