T he n am es Abel i no Cant u, Jr

. and Av el i no Cant u, Jr. bot h ap pear i n t he r ecor d t o r epr esent t he 1 ap pe l l an t i n t hi s ca s e. F or t ha t reas on , t hi s ca s e h as be en s t y l ed A be l i no C an t u, J r. , a/k / a A vel i no C an t u, J r. v . T he St at e of

T exas. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0066 6-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
A B EL IN O C A N T U , J R . A /K /A A VEL INO CA NT U, JR ., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 21 4t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s
Av eli no C antu Jr. ( “Ca n tu”) appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for mansl aug hter of his so n, 12

Avelino Cantu III (“Av elino”). Se e T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 04 (Verno n 200 3). Af ter a jury trial on an ind ictme nt for mu rder, Cant u w as foun d guilty o f t he lesser-include d of

fense of mansl aug hter

. Id

. The ju ry as ses se d p u n is hment atthree y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion

. Id . § 12.33 (V e rn on Sup p. 201 0). By tw o issues, Cantu argues that the trial court erred in den y ing his requeste d jury charge instructio ns on : (1) self-def ense ; and (2) the lesser-include d of fense of criminally
ne g l i g en t ho mi c i de

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Ap ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , Ca n tu sh o t a n d kill e d hi s a d u ltso n , Ave lin o
. O n t h a t m o rn in g, Av eli no w as eng ag ed i n an arg ument w it h hi s mot her , Y ola nda C antu, and w as tol d tha t he c oul d no lon g er

st ay i n the r esi dence

. Av eli no th en flew int o a ra g e and ov ertur ned t he ki tch en ta ble , t hr ew

a flow er pot, and t hr ew Y ola nda’ s c ell phone. W hen C antu came home, he confro nted his son about the arg ument, and Av eli no threa ten ed h im w ith a knif e. Once Av elino ca lm e d d o wn , C ant u, Yoland a an d the ir g ra ndchi ld left t he home h o p ing thatAv eli no w oul d s oon l eav e the r esi dence

. Can tu testif ied th at at that time, he w as af raid for his life , so he retrieved a h a n d gun f rom h is
w or ks hop befor e he left. W it hin a hal f hour , Cantu , Yo lan da and thei r g ra ndchi ld r etur ned to the home and found that Av eli no had not l eft. After w ait ing in the c ar for fiv e to ten mi nutes w hil e Y ola nda
w ent to re tr iev e some personal it ems, Can tu ev entual ly w ent ins ide w h e re Aveli no thr eatened hi m ag ain

. Acc or din g to Can tu’ s tes ti mony , Av eli no thr eatened to ki ll hi m. After
sev er al thr eats , Av eli no then beg an to punch Can tu, and Can tu, there a fte r, r etr eated3

outs ide the home. Av eli no c aug ht up w it h hi m and c onti nued t he at tac k. C antu tes ti fied that he th oug ht Av eli no had a w eapon. C antu fire d one shottha t st ruckAv eli no i n the
c he s t an d k i l l ed h i m. Yolanda testif ied that aft er going out side, Cantu and Av eli n o we re ev ent ually separated and w er e on oppos it e s id e s o f t h e dr iv ew ay

to thei r home w hen t he s hot w as fire d. Al thoug h C antu ag re ed w it h Y o lan da’ s s tatementon c ro ss -e x aminat ion , he had
ear li er tes ti fied th at he w as in fear for his li fe and that his son w as “r ig ht on [hi m].” C antu
a lso te st if ie d th a t h e i n te n d e d t o f ire a sh o t in to th e grou n d , in to a wall , o r in to Ave lin o ’s le g. Cantu and his w ife bo th te stif ied th at Avelino ha d a long history of v iolent and antisoc ial behav ior

. Can tu test ified that Av eli no had thr eatened hi m w it h a b aseba ll bat and a k nife on pr ev iou s occ asi ons, had chok ed one of hi s b ro thers, had c hased C antu’ s d og
w it h an ax e w it h the intentto ki ll the dog , had assaul ted and threat ened a homele ss man, had threat ene d an oth er inma te w hile in jail, and w as a me mb er of street and prison gangs. At t he c los e of ev ide nce, def e n se c o u nsel as ked that the t ri al cour t i ncl ude in st ru ct io n s o n s e lf-d e fe n se in th e ju ry cha rge , n o ti n g th a t Ca n tu ’s e n ti re tri a l st ra te gy re v olv ed around t he c oncep t of se lf-d efense. The tr ial co urt den ied t h e r eq uest , and f urthe r denied the request for an instruct ion on criminallyneglig ent hom icide. T h e jury found Can tu g uil ty

of mansl aug hter , and thi s a ppeal ens ued.

II. D I S CUS S I ON A . Self -D ef

ense By hi s first is sue, C antu arg ues that there w as some ev ide nce to s uppor t a findi ng of sel f-defense, a n d t h e refore, t he j ur y sh oul d hav e been g iv en an ins tr uct ion on t he aff ir mati v e defense. W hether or not thi s cons ti tuted er ro r, w e find that Can tu did not show4

act ual har m. 1. A pp licab le L aw “A n ac cus ed has the right to an i nst ru cti on on any defensi v e i ss ue rais ed by the
ev ide nce, w hether

that ev ide nce is w eak or st ro ng , uni mpeached or co ntradi cte d, an d
re g ar dle ss of w hat t he tr ial co urt may or may not thi nk about the cr edi bil it y of the defense.” Ham el v. State , 916 S.W .2d 491, 493 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1996)

. The acc used’ s t est imony alo ne may

be s uff ic ien t to ra is e a defensi v e theor y re q uir ing a charg e. Id

. The fail ur e to instruct th e jury

on self-def ense w hen it is raised by the evide n c e is subject to ha rmless
er ro r anal y si s. Id . at494. C onseq uentl y , w e c onsi der ( 1) w hether

the ev ide nce, v iew ed in the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to Can tu, is suffici ent to ra is e the is sue of sel f-defense; and ( 2)
w hether fail ur e to inc lud e the r eq uest ed j ur y i nst ru cti ons cons ti tuted har mf ul er ro r. See id .; Dys on v

. St ate , 672 S.W .2d 4 60, 4 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. In order to est abl is h the aff ir mati v e defense of sel f def ense w it h deadl y f o rc e, a def end ant must presen t som e evidence tha t : (1 ) he w ould be justif ied in using force ag ain st the o ther

under Tex as Penal C ode s ect ion 9. 3 1 ; (2) a reason abl e person in the acto r's si tua tion would not have ret reate d; and (3) he reason ably believ ed th e de adly fo rce
w as immedi atel y

nec ess ar

y to protec t hims elf ag ain st the other 's use or attempt ed use of unl awful deadl y

forc e. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 9. 31(a ), 9.32 (Vernon Supp . 200 9). The “ apparent dang er ” doct ri ne al low s a person to de fend hims elf from ap par ent dan ger to th e sam e extent as he w ould if th e da nger w ere real; th erefore, no ev iden ce is
nece ssaryto show that the agg ressor w as actu ally us ing or att empti ng to use deadl y forc e. See, e.g. , Sem air

e v . St ate , 612 S.W .2d 528, 530 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980)

. How ev er , t he statu tory requireme nt tha t the b elief must be reaso nab le mitigates th is doctrine b ecau se“ D eadl y f or ce” m eans “ f or ce t hat i s i nt ended or k nown by t he a ct or t o cau se, or i n t he m anner of 2 i t s us e o r i nten de d u s e i s ca pa bl e o f ca us i ng , de ath or s eri ou s bo di l y i njury

. ” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 9. 01( 3) ( Ver non 2003)

. “Ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y ” i s def i ned as any i nj ur y t hat “cr eat es a subst ant i al ri sk ofdeat h or t hat c a u s e s d e a th , s e r io u s p e r m a n e n t d is f ig u r e m e n t, o r p r o tr a c te d lo s s o r im p a ir m e n t o f th e f u n c tio n o fa n y b o d ily m em be r or org an
. ” Id . § 1 .0 7 (a )( 4 6 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).

5 itr eq uires that a reaso nab le person w oul d hav e bel iev ed there w as a dang er of death or
s e ri o u s b o d il y in ju ry ; a p p a re n td a n ge r i s n o tju d ge d so le l yb yt h e a c c u s e d ’s su bje c t ive 2 per cept ion

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 9.32; Sem air e, 612 S. W .2d a t 530

. If there was some ev iden ce for each of t hese t hree elem ent s, the trial court shou ld h a ve gi ve n a ju ry i n s t ru c t io n o n t h e d e fe n s e o f se lf -d e fe n s e
. If

t h e t ri a l c o u rt e rr e d , “we must re v erse th e c o n vi cti on i f appell ant s uffer ed any ac tual har m by

the omis si on of the def ensive instruction .” Car m en v . St ate , 276 S.W .3d 538 , 546 (Tex. A p p.– Housto n [1st Di st. ] 200 8, pe t. re f’d)

. W hen c onduc ti ng a har m anal y si s, a re v iew ing cour t mayco nsi der the fol low ing four f a ctors : ( 1) the charg e i tse lf; ( 2) the sta te of the ev ide nce inc lud ing cont est ed iss ues and the w eig ht of the probati v e ev ide nce; ( 3) arg uments of couns el; and, (4 ) any other re lev ant i nformati on rev eal ed by the re cord of the tr ial as a w hol e. Hutch v. State , 9 2 2 S. W .2 d 16 6 , 1 7 1 ( T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Bai ley v. Sta te , 867 S.W .2d 4 2, 43 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 3)). 2. Err or

an d Har m A nal ysis Ass uming , w it hout deci din g , t hat C antu prov ide d s ome ev ide nce to s u p p ort t he ele ments neces sar

y to est abl is h his aff ir mati v e defense, w e address the re q uirement t hat C a n t u m u s td e mo n s t r a t e a c t u a l h a r m c a u s e d b y t h e fa i l u r e t o g i v e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o n s e l fdefense. T o demonstrate actua l har m, Cantu shoul d hav e analyz ed the charg e i tse lf, t he other ev ide nce, the arg uments of couns el or any othe r re levan t f a cto rs thatw oul d s how6

act ual har m. See Hutch , 922 S.W .2d a t 171

. The Stat e c ont ends that Can tu fail ed to per form any har m analysis and t her efore fail ed to demons tr ate a ctu al har m. W e ag re e. Can tu' s o nly

di sc uss ion of har m is co ntai ned i n hi s repl y br ief, i n w hic h he ass erted: It is clear

from t he ent ire r ecord, fro m the v oir di re , and throug hout the pr esent ati on of ev ide nce that the a ppe lla n t' s e nti re defense w as that of self-def ense . By

not gra n t in g the app ellant 's req uest fo r the self-def ense in the c harg e, th e c o u rtg re atl y har med the appel lan t' s a bil it y to defend hims elf at tr ial

. Therefor e the actual harm tes t out li ned i n A l m a n za w as met. Can tu' s b ar e as ser

ti on of har m fail s t o address the charg e i tse lf, anyspeci fic e v ide nce, any s pe c i fi ca rg um en ts o f c ou ns el , or a ny o th er fac to rs t ha t w ou l d de mo ns trat e ac tu al h ar m. Accordin gly , w e con clude that he ha s failed to dem onst rate th at th e trial c ourt's error, if any , c aused hi m act ual har m. See Id

. (req uir ing that the appel lan t mus t s how so me act ual har m in order

for a deni al of a r eq uest ed jury i nst ru cti on to be rev ersi ble er ro r) ; see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i) ( “The br ief mustco ntai n a c lea r and c onci se arg ument for the cont ent ions ma de , w i th a pp r op r i at e c i ta ti on s t o au th or i ti es a nd t o th e r ec ord. ” )

. F or this
re ason, w e ov er ru le Can tu’ s first is sue. B. Cr imi nal ly

N egl ig entH om icid e By hi s s econd i ss ue, C antu arg ues that the c our t er re d i n noti nst ru cti ng the jur y on the l ess er-i ncl uded offense of cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide

. Ag ain , w e di sag re e. 1. A pp licab le L aw As a matt er

of law , “ [c] ri minal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide i s a l ess er-i ncl uded offense of
mu rder.” Tr

uji ll o v . St ate , 227 S.W .3d 1 64, 1 68 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2006, pet.
re f ’d ) (ci ti n g Saunder

s v . St ate , 840 S.W .2d 390, 39 1 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ). After the de te r mi na ti on h as b ee n ma de tha t a s pe c i fi ccr i me is a le s s er- i nc l ud ed o ffens e of t he c r i me charg ed ag ain st the a cc used, the acc used is enti tl ed t o h a ve th e jur y i nst ru cte d on the7

les ser off ense so lon g as there i s s ome ev ide nce that w oul d per mit a j ur y to ra ti onal ly

find that, if the defendant is g uil ty , he is g uil ty onl y of the l ess er-i ncl uded offense. Hal l v. State , 225 S.W .3d 524 , 536 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). In t his st ep of the anal y si s, anythi ng m or e tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce maybe suffici ent t o ent it le a defendant to a les ser ch a rge
. I n othe r w or ds, the ev ide nce m u st e sta bli sh the l ess er i ncl uded offense as a v ali d, rati onal alt er nati v e to the c harg ed offense. Id . (interna l q uot ation s omitt ed). A s o p p o s e d t o t h e c r i me o f m u r d e r , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a m e n t a l s t a t e o f hi g her cul pabi li ty , the cri me of

cri minal ly

negl ig ent homic ide req uires only that the acc used oug ht to have bee n aware of

a su bsta ntial and unjust if iable risk presen ted bythe circum stan ces. Com par e T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 19.02 ( Ve rn o n 2003) ( murde r) , with id . § 19.05 (c ri minal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide ), and id . § 6.03( d) ( cul pabl e mental st ates ). To c onst it ute
cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide , “ [t] he r is k mus t be of such a n ature and deg re e tha t t he failure to p erceive it const itute s a gross deviation from the stan dard of care tha t an ord inary person w oul d ex er ci se under all the ci rc umstan ces as v iew ed from t he ac tor 's st andpoi nt.” Id . § 6.03( d)

. A c harg e of c rim in a lly neg li g ent h omic ide , t hen, is onl y j ust ified w hen t he
acc used shoul d hav e k now n the r is k, but for w hatev er

r eason , fail ed to r ecog niz e i t. “ If the evid en c e s ho w s t ha t th e de fen da nt ' s a w aren es s i s s uc h th ath e pe r c ei v ed t he r i s kh is cond uct creat ed, he is not ent itled to a charge of crim inally neglig ent hom icide.” T ru ji ll o, 2 2 7 S. W .3 d at16 8 (cit in g Thom as v. State , 699 S .W .2d 8 45, 850 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85)). 2. Err or

A nal ysis In t his ca se, C antu used a g un to ca use Av eli no’ s d e a th

. "Ev ide nce that a d e fe n d a n tkn o ws a gu n is lo a d e d , t h a t h e is fa m il ia r wit h gu n s a n d t h e ir p o t e n t ia l fo r i n ju ry,8

and t hat h e poi nts a g un atanot her i ndi cat es a person w ho i s a w ar e of a r is k created by that condu ct and di sreg ar ds the r is k." Id

. This ev ide nce does not e sta bli sh that Can tu w as
unaw ar e of the ri sk

. See id

. In s uppor

t of hi s s econd i ss ue on appeal , Can tu poi nts to his ow n tes ti mony that“ he f ired a sho t inten d in g it t o go into the g roun d, into a w all, or into [Avelino’s] leg.” T his
ev ide nce coul d onl y be hel pful in deter mini ng if the ki ll ing w as int enti onal and does not l end any su ppor t t o t h e r e q uirement t hat C antu w as unaw ar e of the dang ers t hat s ur ro unded his co nduct

. In fact, Can tu tes ti fied that he loa ded t he g un, h e k new how to fire the g un, he had fire d other g uns in the past , and he int ended to use it to protec t his l ife—i ndi cat ing not only knowledge of

the risk, b u t a ls o the ex pect ation that he cou ld exploit that risk in
o r d e r t o p r o t e c th i ms e l f. W e find no ev ide nce to suppor t a jur y inst ru cti on for

cri minal ly

negl ig ent h omic ide , and theref ore, we ov errule Cant u’s secon d issue. Finding no error, w e ne ed n ot ad dress
w hether f ail ur e to hav e the jury inst ru cte d on thi s pointw as har mf ul. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. III . C ONCL US I ON For the foreg oin g r eason s, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s fin al jud g ment.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 30th day of Nov ember , 201 0.