CAUSE NO. PD-0740-15

____________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

____________________________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS

Respondent/ Appellant

v.

VANDA VIGIL

Petitioner/ Appellee

_____________________________________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER SEVEN TRIAL COURT NO. 20120C10835

THE COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS NO. 08-13-00273-CR

____________________________________________________________
AMENDED PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

_____________________________________________________________

WILLIAM W. NAVIDOMSKIS Counsel for Petitioner,Vanda Vigil 701 St. Vrain El Paso, Texas 79902 Tel: (915) 730-8644 Fax: (915) 975-8028 SBN 24053384

defense@weslawyer.com PD-0740-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 7/17/2015 6:04:44 PM Accepted 7/22/2015 2:45:10 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKIDE NTI TY OF J UDGE, PARTIE S, AND COUNSEL

PETI TI ONER: Van da Vig il , rep res en te d i n Tri al an d o n Ap pe al by:

W il li am W . Navi do m sk is 71 1 M y rtl e St reet El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

RESPONDENT : The St at e o f Tex as rep res en te d Ap pe al by:

Ja im e Esp arza , Dis tri ct Att or ne y Ro na ld Ban erji, As si st an t Di st ric t At to rn ey 50 0 E. San Ant on io El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

Tria l Co un se l:

Ja im e Esp arza , Dis tri ct Att or ne y Alejan dr o C ue ll ar, Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y Sara h R og ne ss , Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y Pat ric k S lo an , Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y 50 0 E. San Ant on io El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

TRI AL COURT: Co un ty Cou rt a t Law Nu m be r Sev en , El Pas o, Tex as , th e Hon or ab le Tom Sp ie czn y , Pres id in g.

iTABLE OF CONTENT S

IDENTITY OF JUDGE, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....i

TABLE OF CONTEN TS........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ii , ii i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....iv

, v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......1

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY.....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..1

GROUNDS PRESENTED....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .2

ARGUMENT......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..3

1. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ ru li ng th at th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng a co nv ic ti on is le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t whe ne ve r th e tri er of fact be li ev es th e te st im on y of th e vi ct im al on e

co nf li ct s wit h de ci si on s of th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t............

....... ....... 3

2. By tre at in g th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st of whe th er “ an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t”

as es ta bl is he d whe ne ve r th e vi ct im ’s te st im on y a l o n e is be li ev ed by th e tri er of fact
, th e co ur t of ap pe al s ha s de ci de d a cas e whi ch co nf li ct s wit h de ci si on s of th e Uni te d Stat es Su pr em e Co ur t and wit h d eci si on s o f th is Co ur t...........6

3. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ de ci si on to va cat e th e tri al co ur t’s ord er gran ti ng a ne w tri al on l eg al in su ffi ci en cy gr ou nd s whe n th ere were no ey ewit ne ss es

co nn ect in g Pet it io ne r Vig il to th e as sa ul t an d th e St at e co nf es se d erro r on th is
po in t co nf li ct s wit h ap pl ic ab le de ci si on s of th is Co ur t

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9

4. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ ru li ng th at a rev ie win g co ur t can “ in fer” th at a de fen da nt is a pr im ary act or in an as sa ul t cas e in vo lv in g m ul ti pl e as sa il an ts wit ho ut i d e n t i fy in g th e sp eci fic co nd uc t th e de fen da nt en ga ge d in co nf li ct s wi t h
ap pl ic ab le de ci si on s of th is Co ur t

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...11

ii5. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ de te rm in at io n th at th e m an ne r an d m ean s pa rag rap hs al le ge d in a ch arg in g in st ru m en t whi ch are de sc rip ti ve of an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e ch arg ed of fen se are m ere su rp lu sa ge co nf li ct s wit h ap pl ic ab le de ci si on s of th is Co ur t...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... .....14

6. The co ur t of ap pe al s d e p art ed fro m th e Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st by m eas ur in g th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce agai ns t a ch arg e whi ch was hypo th et ic al ly in co r rect be cau se it fai le d to co ns id er th e m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s of th e ch arg in g in st ru m en t

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...16

7. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ tre at m en t of th e m an ne r an d m ea n s pa rag rap hs of a ch arg in g in st ru m en t as m ere su rp lu sa ge co n f l i c t s w it h de ci si on s of th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t w h ic h req ui re a ch arg in g in st ru m en t to pr ov id e a de fen da nt wit h fai r an d ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e of fen se ch arg ed

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....18

PRAYER..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .19

CERTIFI CATE OF COMP LIANCE......

....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....21

CE RTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE............

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . . . . . . 21

APPENDIX.......

....... ....... ....... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....22

iiiINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

FEDERAL CASES PAGES

Haml in g v . Uni te d S ta te s , 41 8 U.S. 8 7, 1 17 (19 74 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....19

Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 3 07 , 31 8- 31 9 (1 97 9)

....... ....... ....... ...4, 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9 , 16

McKo y v. No rt h C ar ol in a , 49 4 U.S. 4 33 , 44 9 (1 99 0)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...18

Sc ha d v . Ari zo na , 50 1 U.S. 6 34 (19 91 ) (p lu ral it y op in io n)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .18

STATE CASES

Ada mes v. St at e , 35 3 S .W .3d 85 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 11 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... 17

Dur ha m v. St at e , 16 S.W .2d 10 92 , 10 95 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 29 ).........

....... ....... ...13

Gomez v. St at e , No. 0 8- 10 -0 02 76 -CR, 2 01 2 WL 39 09 70 at * 8)

....... ....... ....... .....7, 8

Hal l v. S ta te , 22 5 S .W .3d 52 4, 5 36 (Tex .Cri m .App .20 07 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... 15

Hoo pe r v. S ta te , 21 4 S .W .3d 9, 1 3 (Te x.C rim. App .20 07 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ..7

Is as si v. St at e , 33 0 S .W .3d 63 3, at 63 8 (Te x.C rim. App . 20 10 ).........

....... ....... ....... .5

Jef fe rs on v. St at e , 18 9 S .W .3d 30 5 (Te x.C rim. App . 20 06 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... 18

Lu ci o v . St at e , 35 1 S .W .3d 87 8, 8 94 (Tex .Cri m .App . 20 11 ).........

....... ....... ....... ......6

Mal ik v. St at e , 95 6 S .W .2d 23 4 (Te x.C rim. App . 19 97 ).........

....... ....... ....... ......16, 1 7

McCu in v. St at e , 50 5 S .W .2d 82 7, 8 30 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 74 ).........

....... ....... .....13

Ran so m v. St at e , 92 0 S .W .2d 28 8, 3 01 -3 02 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 94 ).........

....... ......12

ivSa ld an o v . St at e , 70 S.W .3d 87 3, 8 84 (Tex .Cri m .App . 20 02 ).........

....... ....... ....... ..11

Sa nc he z v. S ta te , 37 6 S .W .3d 76 7, 7 72 (20 12 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....16

Sc hmi dt v. St at e , 27 8 S .W .3d 35 3 (Te x.C rim. App . 20 09 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... .15

St uh le r v. S ta te , 21 8 S .W .3d 70 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... .18

W il li ams v. St at e , 23 5 S W 3d 74 2 (Te x. Cr im .App . 20 07 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ..7

vSTATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pet it io ne r, Van da Vig il , her eb y waiv es ora l ar gu m en t.

STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

Thi s p et it io n c on cern s t he de ci si on of t he co ur t o f ap pe al s t o v acat e an d s et

as id e a t ria l co ur t’s o rd er g ran ti ng a ne w tri al aft er t he Pet it io ne r, Van da Vig il , was

co nv ic te d o f th e cri m in al off en se of C la ss “ A” as sa ul t. Vig il ba se d h er m ot io n fo r

ne w tri al in pa rt o n a ll eg at io ns th at th e ev id en ce was leg al ly ins uf fic ie nt to su pp or t

th e v erd ic t. Aft er co nd uc ti ng a he ari ng on Pet it io ne r’s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al an d

he ari ng arg um en t fr om bo th th e St at e an d Def en se , th e tr ia l co ur t g ran te d Van da

Vig il ’s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

.

STATE MENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STO RY

1. The co ur t o f ap pe al s h an de d d own it s o pi ni on on May 15, 2 01 5.

2. No m ot io n fo r reh eari ng was fi le d.

Pag e -1-QUEST IO NS PRESENTE D FOR REVIEW

1. Did th e co ur t of ap pe al s err in ho ld in g th at it is well -es ta bl is he d ru le or te st of le ga l su ffi ci en cy th at th e vi ct im ’s te st im on y a l o ne , if be li ev ed

, is le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a co nv ic ti on ?

2. Did th e co ur t of ap pe al s err in tre at in g th e Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st of whe th er “ an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve f o un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t” as es ta bl is he d whe ne ve r th e v ic ti m ’s tes ti m on y is be li ev ed by trie r of fact ?

3. W as it pr op er fo r th e co ur t of ap pe al s to di s r e g a r d t he tri al co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng a ne w tri al on le ga l in su ff i ci en cy gr ou nd s whe n th ere were no ey ewit ne ss es co nn ect in g Pet it ioner V igi l to the al le ge d as sa ult

, es pe ci ally si nc e th e St at e co nf es se d e rro r on th is po in t?

4. W as it erro r fo r co ur t of ap pe al s to ru le th at a rev ie win g co ur t can “ in fer” th at

a de fen da nt was a pr im ary act or in an y as sa ul t in vo lv in g m ul ti pl e a s s a i l an ts wit ho ut i d e n ti fy in g th e sp eci fic co nd uc t whi ch was en ga ge d in by th at de fen da nt ?

5. Did th e co ur t o f a p p e a l s err by tre at in g th e m an ne r an d m ean s pa rag rap hs al le ge d in th e ch arg in g in st ru m en t as m ere su rp lu sa ge , whe n th es e al le ga ti on s were d es cri pt iv e o f an ess en ti al ele m en t o f th e ch arg ed off en se ?

6. Did th e co ur t of ap pe al s de pa rt fro m th e Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st by m eas ur in g t he su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce agai ns t a ch arg e whi ch was hypo th et ic al ly in co rrec t be cau se it fai le d to ta ke in to co ns id erat io n th e m an ne r

an d m ean s al le ga ti on s o f th e ch arg in g i ns tru m en t?

7. Can a co ur t of ap pe al s tre a t t h e m an ne r an d m ean s pa rag rap hs se t ou t in a ch arg in g i ns tru m en t as m ere s ur pl us ag e whe n de ci si on s of th e U.S. S up rem e Co ur t whi ch req ui re a ch arg in g in st ru m en t p ro vi de a de fen da nt wit h fai r an d ad eq ua te no ti ce o f th e o ffen se ch arg ed ?

Pag e -2-ARGUMENT

1. The c ou rt o f ap pea ls ’ rul in g tha t the ev id ence su ppo rti ng a co nv ic tio n is le g al ly su ffi ci ent w hene ve r the tri er of fa ct bel ie ve s the tes timony of the vi cti m al on e co nfl ic ts w ith deci si on s o f the Uni ted St at es Supre m e Cou rt

Pet it io ne r, Van da Vig il

, was co nv ic te d aft er a jury tri al fo r Cl as s “ A” as sa ul t.

The co m pl ai ni ng wit ne ss , Eli zab et h Ji m en ez, te st ifi ed th at sh e was at te m pt in g to ex it

C o c o n u t ’s Bar whe n sh e was at ta ck ed fro m be hi nd by Pet it io ne r Vig il an d Vig il ’s

da ug ht er, Ale xi s Go nz al ez. RR 3 , 10

. Ji m en ez was ask ed by the pro se cu to r, “ How

di d t he y att ack y ou ? ” (Id .), an d re pl ie d:

A s I was le av in g, I fel t Alex is gr ab bi ng fo r m y rig ht br eas t, I gu es s , a n d s h e st art ed hi tt in g m e on m y he ad

, an d th en Van da go t in an d st art ed pu ll in g m y ha ir a nd hi tt in g m e o n t he he ad . And th at ’s when I fel l. RR 3,10

.

W he n as ke d, “ Did y ou fig ht ba ck at al l? ”, Ji m en ez rep li ed : “ I – I was n’t ev en ab le to

.

I di d no t ev en se e th em at ta ck in g m e.” Id

. Ji m en ez te st ifi ed th at rig ht aft er sh e fel l to

th e flo or a bo un cer se pa rat ed he r fro m he r at ta ck ers

. Ji m en ez’ co us in

, Cec il ia

Arch ul et a, was al so pr es en t in Co co nu ts ’ ba r. Id

. Lik e Ji m en ez, Archu le ta fai le d to

li nk Vig il to th e as sa ul t an d co m m en te d th at “ It al l ha pp en ed so qu ic k.” RR 3, 26 -2 9.

St ep ha ni e Ch av ez, a de fen se wit ne ss , t es ti f i e d t h a t sh e di d no t se e Vig il pu ll

an y on e’s ha ir, pu nc h an y on e, or en ga ge in an y vi ol en ce. RR 3, 73

. Pet it io ne r Vig il

al so to ok th e st an d. Sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d wit ne ss ed Ji m en ez in st ig at e th e m at te r

wit h he r da ug ht e r , A l ex is Gon zal ez, by cal li ng he r da ug ht er a “ di sg us ti ng le sb ia n”

Pag e -3-an d th en pu sh in g he r da ug ht er. RR 3, 81 -8 2. Vig il in di cat ed th e pu sh in g in ci de nt

be twee n Ji m en ez an d he r da ug ht er res ul te d in th e two fal li ng to th e flo or , at whi ch

ti m e a bo un cer in te rv en ed an d se pa rat ed th em

. RR 3, 83

. Vig il te st ifi ed th at th e en ti re

in ci de nt “ ha pp en ed li ke se co nd s. It was li te ral ly se co nd s” an d th at sh e di d no t st rik e

or in jure Ji m en ez in an y way , bu t on ly ap pr oa ch ed “ to go he lp [h er] da ug ht er ge t up ,

try to s ep arat e h er, o r so m et hi ng .” RR 3, 83

.

On pa ge 6 of it s op in io n, th e co ur t of ap pe al s ack no wled ge s Vig il ’s co nt en ti on

th at th e ev id en ce was le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t as to (1 ) th e id en ti ty of V i g i l a s t he

pe rp et rat or of th e Cl as s “ A” as sa ul t of fen se ; an d (2 ) th e c a us at io n el em en t of th is

al le ge d of fen se

. Bu t on th e ne xt pa ge of it s op in io n, it reject s Vig il ’s co nt en ti on th at

th e ev id en ce was leg al ly ins uf fic ie nt as t o t he id en ti ty elem en t:

W e ag ree wit h Vig il th at , fro m a di rect ev id en ce st an dp oi nt , th e id en ti ty is su e ul ti m at el y bo il s do wn to a he -s ai d, sh e-s ai d di sp ut e tu rn in g on th e te st im on y of a si ng le wit ne ss : Ji m en ez. Howev er, it is well -es ta bl is he d th at th e vi ct im ’s
te st im on y al on e, if be li ev ed

, is le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on

. See Gomez v. St at e , No. 08 -1 0- 00 27 6- CR, 20 12 W L 39 09 70
, at *8 (Tex .App .–El Pas o F eb . 8, 2 01 2, n o p et .) (n ot de si gn at ed for pu bl ic at io n)

.

Thi s an al y si s co nf li ct s wit h t h e an al y si s ad op te d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t in

Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 30 7, 31 8- 31 9 (1 97 9)

, whe rei n th e fo ll owi ng le ga l

su ffi ci en cy te st was crea te d: “ In st ead

, th e rel ev an t qu es ti on is whe th er, aft er vi ewin g

th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , an y rat io na l t rie r of fact

Pag e -4-co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. ,

at 31 9 (em ph . a dd ed ). Und er Ja cks on , a rev ie win g co ur t is no t pe rm it te d to fo reg o

rev ie w of th e ev id en ce fo r le ga l su ffi ci en cy m erel y be cau se th e tri er of fact be li ev ed

t h e vi ct im of a cri m e. A rev ie win g co ur t is ob li ga te d to de te rm in e whe th er an y

rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d fin d al l of th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se ch arg ed

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

The co ur t of app eal s ass ert s on pa ge 7 of its op in io n th at it can no t act as

a “ th irt een th juro r” an d ci te s to cas e la w a pp l i c a b l e t o a fact ua l su ffi ci en cy rev ie w.

(See Is as si v. S t a t e , 3 30 S.W .3d 63 3, at 63 8 (Tex .Cri m . Ap p. 20 10 ). Bu t th is cas e

au th or it y is in ap pl ic ab le to Vig il ’s cas e b ecau se Vig il ha s ra is ed a le ga l s uf fic ie nc y

ch al le ng e to he r co nv ic ti on -- no t a fact ua l su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e. Und er a le ga l

su ffi ci en cy an al y si s, th e co ur t of ap pe al s sh ou ld ha ve fo un d th e ev id en ce le ga ll y

in su ffi ci en t be cau se Ji m en ez read il y ad m it te d th at sh e di d no t ob se rv e ei th er Vig il

or th e ot he r al le ge d ass ai la nt st rik e he r or in jure he r in an y way

. W he n ask ed if sh e

ha d fo ug ht ba ck aft er be in g at ta ck ed fro m be hi nd

, Vig il te st ifi ed

, “ I was n’t ev en ab le

to

. I di d no t even se e th em at ta ck in g m e.” RR 3, 10

.

The re is no ba si s fo r th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ ho ld in g th at if a vi ct im ’s te st im on y

is be li ev ed by th e tri er of fact
, th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy of ev id en ce can no t be ch al le ng ed

.

U n d e r Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , no su ch req ui rem en t is im po se d. The on ly in qu iry is

Pag e -5-whe th er an y ra t i o n a l t r i er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e

of fen se be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

2. By trea tin g the le ga l su ffi ci ency tes t of w heth er “a ny ra tio na l tri er of fa ct

co ul d ha ve fo und the es se nti al el ements of the of fens e bey on d a rea so na bl e do ubt” as es ta bl is hed w hene ve r the vi cti m ’s tes timony al on e is bel ie ve d by the tri er of fa ct, the co u r t of ap pea ls ha s deci ded a ca se w hi ch co nfl ic ts

w ith deci si on s o f the Unit ed Sta tes Supr eme Co urt an d w ith deci si on s of thi s Co urt

On p ag e 6 of it s op in io n th e co ur t of ap pe al s se t fo rth th e fo ll owi ng te st fo r

de te rm in in g wh et he r th e ev id en ce was leg al ly suf fic ie nt to su pp or t a c on vi ct io n:

In de te rm in in g whe th er th e ev id en ce is le ga ll y s u f fic ie nt to su pp or t a

co nv ic ti on , a rev ie win g c o u r t must co ns id er al l of th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d de te rm in e whe th er, ba se d on t h a t e v i de nc e

an d reas on ab le in fe re nces th eref ro m , a rat io na l fact fin de r co ul d ha ve fo un d th e

es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

It th en ci te d to Lu ci o v. St at e , 35 1 S.W .3 d 8 78
, 89 4 (Tex .Cri m .App

. 20 11 ) an d to

Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 31 8- 31 9 (1 97 9) as au th or it y fo r th is le ga l

su ffi ci en cy te st

. Bu t on th e ne xt pa ge of it s op in io n, it su bs ti tu te d th e fo ll owi ng le ga l

su ffi ci en cy te st fo r th e Ja cks on le g a l s uf fic ie nc y te st in ad dr es si ng Vig il ’s le ga l

su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e to th e id en ti ty el em en t of th e as sa ul t of fen se ch arg ed :

“ H o w ev er, it is well -es ta bl is he d th at th e vi ct im ’s te st im on y al on e, if be li ev ed

, is

le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on .” As su pp or t fo r th is ve rs io n of th e le ga l

Pag e -6-su ffi ci en cy te st , th e co ur t of ap pe al s ci te d to it s u n p ub li sh ed de ci si on in Gomez v.

St at e , No. 0 8- 10 -0 02 76 -CR, 2 01 2 WL 39 09 70 at * 8)

.

The U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e te st of le ga l su ffi ci en cy is “ whe th er, aft er

vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on , an y rat io na l tri er

of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t.” Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 30 7, at 319 (1 97 9)

. In Ja cks o n, th e Su pr em e

Co ur t di d no t at ta ch an y si gn ifi can ce to whe th er th e ey ewit ne ss to an al le ge d of fen se

is th e al le ge d vi ct im or a m ere ob se rv er. Nor di d it at ta ch an y si gn ifi can ce to whe th er

or no t t he tri er o f fac t b el ie ve d t he all eg ed vi ct im ’s tes ti m on y . It d id no t at te m pt to

id en ti fy an y typ e o f ev id en ce whi ch was in he ren tl y cred ib le or wou ld wit hs ta nd a

le ga l su ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e. Si nc e Ja cks on was de ci de d, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t

on ce carv ed an ex cep ti on to or ot he rwis e m od ifi ed the le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st it crea te d.

The tes t o f le ga l s uf fic ie nc y is an d re m ai ns th e sa m e.

The sa m e is tru e of t h i s C o u r t ’s a n al y si s. Bas ed on th e Ja cks on te st , it ha s

st at ed

, "...we co ns id er al l of th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d

de te rm in e whe th er, ba se d on th at ev id en ce an d reas on ab le in f e r e n c es th eref ro m , a

r a t i o na l juro r co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be yo n d a

reas on ab le do ub t.” W il li ams v. St at e , 23 5 SW 3d 74 2 (Tex

. Cri m .App

. 20 07 ); Hoo pe r

v. St at e , 21 4 S .W .3d 9, 1 3 (Te x.C rim. App .20 07 ).

Pag e -7-Alt ho ug h th e co ur t of ap pe al s in th is cas e pu rp or ts to ap pl y th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy

te st th e Su pr em e Co ur t crea te d in Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a , it act ua ll y crea te d an en ti rel y

di ffer en t te st

. It no te s th at it s earl ie r un pu bl is he d de ci si on in Gomez v. St at e , su pr a,

he ld th at a cri m e vi ct im ’s te st im on y al on e, if be li ev ed

, es ta bl is he s th at th e ev id en ce

le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on

. Bu t th e Gomez cas e, li ke th is cas e, was

wro ng ly de ci de d. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ erro n e o u s l y h e l d th at it s te st (i.e

. th at th e

vi ct im ’s te st im on y al on e, if be li ev ed

, is le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on ) is

th e sa m e as th e Ja cks on le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st (i.e

. whe th er an y rat io na l tri er of fact

co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a r e a s o n a bl e do ub t.).

Bu t it is no t.

Thi s po in t be co m es ev id en t whe n th e two te st s ar e a p p l i e d t o t h e f act s of th is

cas e. Und er th e Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a te st , Ji m en ez’ in it ia l tri al te st im on y th at Vig il hi t

he r on th e he ad an d pu ll ed he r ha ir ca n n o t b e r e c on ci le d wit h Ji m en ez’ la te r

te st im on y th at sh e di d no t ob se rv e who st ru ck he r fro m be hi nd

. The al le ge d vi ct im ’s

t e st im on y wou ld be le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t un de r Ja cks on be cau se no rat io na l tri er of

fact co ul d fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at V ig il in jure d Ji m en ez. Howev er,

Ji m en ez’ tri al te st im on y wou ld m eet th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st si nc e

th e on ly sh owi ng th e St at e ha d to m ak e to pr ov e it cas e was th at t h e ju r y be li ev ed

Ji m en ez’ tes ti m on y th at Vig il att ack ed an d h it he r.

Pag e -8-The fla w in th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st is th at it is ba se d on

ci rcu la r reas on in g. Und er it s an al y si s, es ta bl is hi ng th at th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d

wou ld in tu rn es ta bl is h th at th e tri er of fact be li ev ed th e vi ct im ’s te st im on y , whi ch in

tu rn wou ld es ta bl is h th at th e ev id en ce was le ga ll y su ffi ci en t. In co nt ras t, th e Ja cks on

v. Vir gi ni a le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st is no t ba se d on ci rcu la r reas on in g, bu t on whe th er

an y rat io na l t rie r of fact co ul d h av e fo un d a ll of th e el em en ts of t he off en se be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t. Nev ert he le ss , th e co ur t of a p p e a ls ’ at te m pt s to m el d it s le ga l

su ffi ci en cy te st wit h th at of th e Ja cks on te st by st at in g th at “ it wou ld be rat io na l for

a jury to co nc lu de Vig il as sa ul te d Ji m en ez ba se d on Ji m en ez’s te st im on y .” (See

Opi ni on , p . 9 ). Thi s at te m pt fai ls

, h o w e ve r, si nc e th ere is no as pe ct of th e Ja cks on

v. Vir gi ni a te st whi ch is ba se d on whe th er th e tri er of fact be li ev ed th e al le ge d vi ct im

o r fo r th at m at te r, th e te st im on y of an y wit ne ss

. Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld th ere f o r e r e je c t

th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ de te rm in at io n th at “ ...th e vi ct im ’s te st im on y al on e, if be li ev ed

,

is le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on ....” as a m is gu id ed le ga l su ffi ci en cy te st

.

3. The co urt of ap pea ls ’ deci si on to va ca te the tri al co urt’ s or der gr an tin g a

new tri al on le ga l in su ffi ci ency gr ou nds w hen ther e w ere no ey ew itn es se s

co nnec tin g Peti tio ner Vig il to the as sa ul t an d the Sta te co nfes se d erro r on thi s po in t co nfl ic ts w ith ap pl ic ab le deci si on s o f thi s Co urt

The co ur t of ap pe al s reject ed th e tri al co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th e ev id en ce

was le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t wit ho ut gi vi ng a reas on .(See op in io n, pp

. 4- 8)

. It ig no red th e

Pag e -9-di ffi cu lt y th e tri al co ur t face d in at te m pt in g to h a r mo ni ze th e in it ia l te st im on y of

Ji m en ez, th e co m pl ai ni ng wit ne ss , wit h he r l a t e r t e s ti m on y

. Alt ho ug h Ji m en ez

in it ia ll y te st ifi ed th at Pet it io ne r Vig il an d he r da ug ht er Alex is ha d hi t he r on th e he ad

fro m he r ba ck si de an d th at V i g i l h a d pu ll ed he r ha ir, du rin g fu rth er qu es ti on in g

Ji m en ez ad m it te d th at sh e di d no t se e an y of he r at ta ck ers – he r pr eci se wor ds be in g,

“ I di d no t ev en see th em att ack in g m e.” RR 3, 10

. Thi s adm is si on by Ji m en ez alo ng

wit h th e fact th at sh e was th e on ly wit ne ss to li nk Vig il to th e al le ge d as sa ul t (a po in t

whi ch th e co ur t of ap pe al s co nc ed es ) te nd s to ex pl ai n why th e pr os ecu to r co nf es se d

erro r an d to ld t h e t r i a l c o u r t at th e m ot io n fo r ne w tri al he ari ng th at sh e di d no t

co ns id er th e ev id en ce le ga ll y su ffi ci en t t o su pp or t Vig il ’s co nv ic ti on of Cl as s “ A”

as sa ul t. The fai lu re of Ji m en ez to id en ti fy a pa rt of he r bo dy wh e r e s h e s u s t a in ed

in

jury or su ffe r e d b o di ly pa in al so pr es en te d le ga l su ffi ci en cy is su e.

The co ur t of ap pe al s di sr eg ard ed th es e de fic ie nc ie s in th e ev id en ce, ho wev er.

In pa rti cu la r, it ov erl oo ke d Ji m en ez’ te st im on y th at sh e di d no t se e he r at ta ck ers whi le

sh e was be in g at ta ck ed fro m th e rear

. In st ead

, ba se d on th e as su m pt io n th at th e

pr os ecu to r co nf es se d erro r, it va cat ed th e tri al co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng Vig il a ne w tri al

.

In do in g so , it fai le d to co ns id er th e im po rta nt ad m is si on by Ji m en ez th at sh e di d no t

se e an y of he r at ta ck ers du rin g th e at ta ck . I t al so ig no re d t h e r u l e of th is Co ur t th at

rev ie win g co ur ts are to g r a n t gr eat weig ht to th e rep res en ta ti on s of pr os ecu to rs in

Pag e -10-co nf es si ng erro r. S al da no v. St at e , 70 S.W .3d 87 3, 88 4 (Tex .Cri m .App

. 20 02 ).

Fu rth er, t he co ur t o f ap pe al s d is reg ard ed th e ru le th at

ap pe ll at e co ur ts [are to ] up ho ld th e tri al co ur t ' s ru li ng on ap pe al ab se nt an

" a b u s e o f di sc ret io n." Tha t is to sa y , as lo ng as th e tri al co ur t's ru li ng was a t le as t wi th in th e zo ne of r eas on ab le di sa gr eem en t, t he ap pe ll at e co ur t wi ll no t in te rced e. Mon tg ome ry v. St at e, 81 0 S.W .2d 37 2, 39 1 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 19 91 ).

Alt ho ug h Ji m en ez’ te st im on y th at sh e di d no t se e he r at ta ck ers m ig ht no t be a

co nc ern to th e co ur t o f ap pe al s, i t s ho ul d h av e b een a co nc ern . Clea rly, the tri al

co ur t act ed wit hi n a reas on ab le zo ne of di sa gr eem en t by fin di ng Ji m en ez’

te st im on y of no t ha vi ng ob se rv ed th e pe rs on s who as sa ul te d he r di sp os it iv e of th e

le ga l su ffi ci en cy is su e

–- es pe ci al ly si nc e no ot he r ey ewit ne ss id en ti fie d Vig il as

pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e as sa ul t. The co ur t of ap pe al s t h e r e fo re im pr op erl y 1

di sr eg ard ed th e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng an d al so fai le d to gi ve res pe ct th e St at e’s

de ci si on to co nf es s er ro r on th is leg al su ffi ci en cy po in t.

4. The c ou rt of ap pea ls ’ rul in g th at a re vi ew in g c ou rt ca n “ in fer” tha t a defe nda nt is a pri m a r y a cto r in an as sa ul t ca se in vo lv in g m ul tip le

as sa il an ts w ith ou t id enti fy in g the sp eci fic co nduc t the defe nda nt
eng ag ed i n co nfl ic ts w ith ap pl ic ab le deci si on s o f thi s Co urt

In t he th ird po in t fo r rev ie w o f he r br ie f to th e co ur t o f ap pe al s, Pe ti ti on er

Vi g i l a r g u e d th at th e St at e fai le d to pr ov e up it s cas e be cau se it ha d li m it ed it s

See pag e 7 of the Opinion, which states, “We a g ree with Vigil that, fr om a direc t 1 evidenc e standpoint, the identity issue ... turn[s] on he testimony of a sing le witness: J imenez.”

Pag e -11-pr os ecu ti on th eo ry to pr ov in g th at Vig il was a p rimary act or , r at he r th an a pa rty

to th e of fen se

. Howev er , t h e c ou rt of ap pe al s reject ed th is arg um en t by Vig il

ba se d o n t he fol lo win g re as on in g:

Vig il co rrec tl y no te s th at th e St at e di d no t ch arg e Vig il un de r la w of th e pa rti es , an d th at as su ch

, Vig il can no t be h e l d c r im in al ly li ab le fo r in juri es

cau se d by Alex is Gon zal ez. Eve n so , th is is no t fat al

. J i men e z t e s ti fie d th at bo th Vig il an d Gon zal ez at ta ck ed h e r. Ass um in g it be li ev ed he r te st im on y , a

reas on ab le jury co ul d in fer th at be cau se Ji m en ez sa id bo th wom en at ta cked he r,

an d be cau se sh e s u f f

e red in juri es , at le as t so m e of th e in juri es co ul d be
at tri bu te d t o Vi gi l.

Und er Tex as law, t he Sta te was re qu ire d t o p ro ve th at th e d efen da nt was

ei th er a pr im ary act or or p a r t y t o th e Cl as s “ A” as sa ul t of fen se al le ge d. Ran so m

v. St at e , 92 0 S.W .2d 28 8, 30 1- 30 2( Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 19 94 ). The co ur t of ap pe al s

ag reed th at Vig il co ul d no t be fou nd gu il ty as a pa rty to th e of fen se

. Howev er, it

no ne th el es s co nc lu de d th at Vig il was st il l gu il ty as a pr ima r y act or “ be cau se

Ji m en ez sa id bo th wom en at ta ck ed he r, an d be cau se sh e su ffer ed in juri es , at le as t

so m e of th e in juri es co ul d be at tri bu te d to Vig il .” In so ru li ng , th e co ur t of ap pe al s

ex cu se d t he Sta te fro m hav in g t o p ro ve ho w Vig il in jure d J im en ez.

Vig il ha s be en un ab le to fin d a si ng le Tex as cas e whe re a co ur t ha s “ in ferr ed ”

th at a de fen da nt , act in g wit h on e or m or e ot he r p e r s o ns , was fo un d gu il ty as a

pr in ci pa l or pr im ary act or wit ho ut so m e ev id en ce of ho w t ha t de fen da nt in jure d

Pag e -12-th e vi ct im of th e al le ge d cri m e. In McCu in v. St at e , 50 5 S.W .2 d 82 7, 83 0 (Tex

.

Cri m

. App

. 1 9 7 4 )

, th is Co ur t he ld th at to de te rm in e whe th er ap pe ll an t was a

pr im ary act or or was a pa rty to th e of fen se , th e tri al co ur t fir st ha d to rem ov e fro m

co ns id erat io n th e act s an d co nd u ct of th e no n- de fen da nt act or

. The n, if th e

ev id en ce of th e co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt th en on tri al wou ld be su ffi ci en t, in an d

of it se lf, to su st ai n th e co nv ic ti on , no s u b mi s s i o n of th e la w of pr in ci pa ls was

req ui red

. Thi s carr ie d fo rward th e ru le it ha d pr ev io us ly es ta bl is he d in Dur ha m v.

St at e , 16 S.W .2d 10 92
, 10 95 (Tex

. C r i m. App

. 19 29 ) (h ol di ng "[w]hen th e

ev id en ce sh ows th at th e accu se d on tri al was a pr in ci pa l act or in th e co m m is si on

of th e of fen se , no ch arg e on pr i n c i p a l s w ou ld be ne ces sa ry , al th ou gh th e pr oo f

m ay al so di sc lo se th at in do in g t he cri m in al act an ot he r to ok an eq ua l p art .").

Non e of th is cas el aw ha s an y co nt in ue d va li di ty i f a d e f en da nt can be

la be le d a pr im ary act or in a m ul ti pl e as sa il an t cas e, wit ho ut t he St at e ha vi ng to

sp eci fy wha t co nd uc t th at de fen da nt en ga ge d in , vi s a v is th e o th er de fen da nt (s )

in vo lv ed in th e of fen se

. Und er t he co ur t of ap pe al s’ a na lysis , t he re is no lo ng er

an y di st in ct io n be twee n pa rti es an d pr im ary act or s or pr in ci pa ls si nc e th e

cau sa ti on el em en t of a cri m in al of fen se can be in ferr ed

. Rev ie w sh ou ld th eref or e

be gr an te d to es ta bl is h th at a de fen da nt ’s “ pr im ary act or ” st at us can no t be si m pl y

“ in ferr ed ” in a cri m in al cas e in vo lv in g m ul ti pl e as sa il an ts

.

Pag e -13-5. The co urt of ap pea ls ’ dete rminat i o n tha t the m an ner an d m ea ns pa ra gr ap hs al le ge d in a c ha rg in g ins trument w hi ch are desc ri pti ve of

a n e ss enti al el ement of the cha rg ed of fens e ar e m ere su rpl us ag e

co nfl ic ts w ith ap pl ic ab le deci si on s o f thi s Co urt

Eli zab et h Ji m en ez, th e co mp la in in g wit ne ss , was as ke d on ly on e qu es ti on

reg ard in g whe th er sh e su ffer ed pa in

. RR 3, 32

. Dur in g he r se co nd red ire ct

ex am in at io n, th e pr os ecu to r as ke d he r: “ W he n y ou were at ta ck ed

, di d y ou feel pa in ? ”

Id

. Ji m en ez’ res po ns e to th is qu es ti on was , “ Yes
, I di d.” Id

. Ji m en ez di d no t in di cat e

whe re she fel t pai n. Nor did sh e id en ti fy a pa rti cu la r bl ow fr om Vig il whi ch cau se d

he r to su ffer pa in

. Id

. Nev ert he le ss , th e co ur t of ap pe al s reject ed he r le ga l su ffi ci en cy

ch al le ng e to th e “ bo di ly inju ry ” el em en t o f th e as sa ul t o ffen se ch arg ed by ruli ng :

J i men ez te st ifi ed th at Vig il hi t he r he ad an d pu ll ed he r ha ir, an d th at s h e f e l t
pa in du rin g th e at ta ck

. Thi s te st im on y is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at Ji m en ez

su ffer ed bo di ly inju ry

.

The co ur t of ap pe al s th us ig no red Vig il ’s arg um en t th at th e ev id en ce was l e ga ll y

in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e an y of th e m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s of th e in fo rm at io n, i.e.

th at Ji m en ez su ffer ed pa in whe n he r ha ir was p u l l e d (p arag rap h A); th at Ji m en ez

su st ai ne d bo di ly in jury aft er be in g th ro wn or pu sh ed to th e gr ou nd (p arag rap h C); or

th at Ji m en ez su st ai ne d bo di ly in jury by be in g hi t on th e he ad (p arag ra p h D )

. The 2

Parag raph B of the infor mation, which alleg ed that Vig il caused bodily injury to J imenez 2 by g rabbing or squee zing J imenez’ brea st, was aba ndoned by the State at the star t of the trial.

Pag e -14-co ur t of ap pe al s in st ead he ld th at Ji m en ez’ te st im on y th at sh e fe l t p a i n d ur in g th e

al le ge d at ta ck was su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th e as sa ul t of fen se al le ge d, ev en th ou gh no

pa rti es ch arg e was su bm it te d t o t he jury.

In Sc hmi dt v. St at e , 27 8 S.W .3d 35 3 (Tex .Cri m .App

. 20 09 ), th e Co ur t of

Cri m in al App eal s ci te d to pr io r cas el aw as es ta bl is hi n g th at whe re a fact al le ge d in

an in di ct m en t or in fo rm at io n is de sc rip ti ve of an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e of fen se , th at

fact is no t m e r e su rp lu sa ge an d m us t be pr ov en by t he St at e as pa rt of it s bu rd en of

pr oo f. In Sc hmi dt

, th e St at e arg ue d th at th e "s tri ki ng ” al le ga ti on was no t req ui red to

be pl ed an d i s u nn eces sa ry su rp lu sa ge th at is "m erel y de sc rip ti ve of an el em en t bu t

no t st at ut or il y req ui red ." Id

., at 35 9. Th e C o u r t he ld

, ho wev er, th at “ The St at e's

arg um en t in th is cas e th at th e no n- st at ut or y , m an ne r and m ean s al le ga ti on of ‘stri ki ng ’

sh ou ld n o t b e co ns id ered a ‘fact req ui red ’ to es ta bl is h th e ch arg ed ret al ia ti on -b y

th reat o f f

e n s e is co nt rary to ou r de ci si on in [ Hal l v. St at e , 22 5 S.W .3d 52 4, 53 6

(Tex .Cri m .App .20 07 )]. In Hal l, th e Co ur t o f Cri m in al App eal s co ns id ered th e n on

st at ut or y , m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on of "s ho ot in g th e in di vi du al wit h a gu n" to be

a "fa ct req ui red " to es ta bl is h th e ch arg ed m ur de r of fen se

. Id

. Acco rd in gl y , th e Co ur t

of Cri m in al App eal s in Sc hmi dt ex pl ai ne d th at fact s whi ch de sc rib e an el em en t of an

of fen se m us t be pr ov en up be cau se th es e f a ct s be ar up on th e de fen da nt ha s be en

gi ve n fa ir a nd ad eq ua te no ti ce o f th e o ffen se ch arg ed :

Pag e -15-

### ...that ap p ell ant could have been conv icted of thi s retaliation -b y-thr ea t of fense un der an ind ictm ent omitting the "to- wit: str iki ng " allegation do es

no t nece ssari ly m ake thi s allegation un nece ssary su rp lus age. We no te that thi s Cour t's decisi o n i n Doyle v. Sta te woul d su pp or t a ho ldi ng that a defend ant's time ly m oti on to qu ash su ch an ind ictm ent woul d requ ire the State to pr ov ide the "to- wit: str iki ng " allegation fo r pu rp os e of pr ov idi ng adequate no tice. See Doyle v. Sta te , 66 1 S.W.2d 7 2 6
, 72 9- 31 ( T e x

. C r

. A p p

. 1 9 8 3 ) ( d e f e n d a n t ' s t i m e l y m o t i o n t o q u a s h a

" no nf un da m entally defective" retaliation -b y-thr ea t indic tm e nt e nt it le d th e defend ant to n oti ce of "h ow and to whom the thr ea t was m ade"). Id

.

Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld reject th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ de t e r mi n a t i on th at th e St at e ne ed

on ly pr o v e Vig il cau se d bo di ly in jury an d th at it co ul d ig no re th e m an ne r an d

m ean s al le ga ti on s o f th e in fo rm at io n i n i ts leg al su ffi ci en cy an al y si s.

6. The co urt of ap pea ls depa rted fro m the Ja ck so n v. V ir

gi ni a le ga l

su ffi ci ency tes t by m ea su ri ng the su ffi ci ency of the e vi denc e a ga in st a cha rg e w hi ch w as hy po thet ic al ly in co rrec t beca us e it fa il ed to

co ns id eri ng the m an ner an d m ea n s a l le ga tio ns of the cha rg in g in st rument

The Co ur t of Cri mi n a l A p p e a l s in Mal ik v. St at e , 95 6 S.W .2d 23 4

(Tex .Cri m .App

. 19 97 ) al te red th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy an al y si s pr ev io us ly ap pl ie d in

Tex as , whi ch ha d be en to co m pa re th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t th e

act ua l ch arg e gi ve n to th e jury. See Sa nc he z v. St at e , 37 6 S.W .3d 76 7, 77 2 (2 01 2)

.

In Mal ik

, th e Co ur t of Cri m in a l App eal s he ld th at th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce wou ld be de te rm in ed by co m pa rin g th e ev id en ce ad du ced at tri al ag ai ns t

Pag e -16-a hypo th et ic al ly co rrec t ch arg e

. Id ., a t 23 0. In Ada mes v. St at e , 3 53 S.W .3d 85 4

(Tex

. Cri m

. App

. 20 11 ), th e Co ur t reject ed th e arg um en t th at th e Mal ik su ffi ci en cy

st an da rd is a pu rel y st at e la w st an da rd th at is fo rei gn to fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al

no rm s an d do es no t ap pl y to a co ns ti tu ti on al ev id en ti ary-su ffi ci en cy rev ie w. Id

. ,

at 86 0. It no te d th at un de r Mal ik "s uc h a ch arg e wou ld be on e th at accu rat el y se ts

ou t t he law, i s au th or iz ed by t he in di ct m en t, do es no t un ne ces sa ril y in crea se th e

St at e's bu rd en of pr oo f or un ne ces sa ril y res tri ct th e St at e's th eo rie s of li ab il it y , an d

ad eq ua te ly de sc rib es th e pa rti cu la r of fen se fo r whi ch th e de fen da nt w a s t rie d."

Mal ik , at 2 40

.



### In Vigil ’s ca se, the cour t of appeals did no t base i t s an al ys i s o n t he

allegation s contai n ed i n the fo ur m anner-and -m eans paragraph s of the

chargin g ins tru m ent. It held that be cau se Ji m en ez te st ifi ed th at bo th Vig il an d

Gon zal ez at ta ck ed he r, “ a re a s o n ab le jury co ul d in fer th at Ji m en ez su ffer ed

in

juri es , at le as t so m e of th e in juri es co ul d be at tri bu te d to Vig il .” It th us rel ie d

on a hypo th et ic al ly in co rrec t ch arg e an al ys is to affi rm Vig il ’s co nv ic ti on

. Vig il

ha s be en un ab le to fin d a si ng le de ci si on fro m an y f e de ral co ur t whi ch ha s he ld

th at le ga l su ffi ci en cy to be m eas ur ed ag ai ns t a ge ne ric of fen se , whi ch fai ls to ta ke

in to co ns id erat io n th e m an ne r an d m ean s al l e g a ti on s of a ch arg in g in st ru m en t.

Rev ie w of t hi s p oi nt is th eref or e warra nt ed

.

Pag e -17-7. The co urt of ap pea ls ’ trea tm ent of the m an ner an d m ea ns pa ra gr ap hs of a cha rg in g in st rument as m ere su rpl us ag e co nfl ic ts w ith deci si on s of the Supreme Cou rt w hi ch requi re a cha rg in g ins trument to pro vi de a defe nda nt w ith fai r a nd a dequ at e no tic e o f the o ffen se cha rg ed

W hi le th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t ha s de te rm in ed th at "t he re is no

ge ne ral req ui rem en t th at th e jury reac h ag reem en t on th e pr el im in ary fact ua l iss ues

whi ch un de rli e th e ve rd ic t" an d th at an in di ct m en t can al le ge di ffer en t m an ne r an d

m ean s of co m m it ti ng a cri m e wit ho ut ren de rin g th e in di ct m en t du pl ic it ou s, it ha s

ne ve r di sp en se d wit h or tre at ed m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s as m ere su rp lu sa ge

.

Sc ha d v. Ari zo na , 50 1 U.S. 63 4 (1 9 91 ) (p lu ral it y op in io n) ; McKo y v. No rt h

Ca ro li na , 4 94 U.S. 4 33 , 4 49 (1 99 0)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t’s an al y si s i n S c h a d is

co ns is te nt wit h th is Co ur t’s an al y si s in Jef fe rs on v. St at e , 18 9 S.W .3d 30 5

(Tex .Cri m .App

. 2 0 0 6 ) a n d St uh le r v. St at e , 21 8 S.W .3d 70 6 (Tex

. Cri m

. App

.

20 07 ), whi ch li ke wis e reco gn iz es th at m an ne r a n d m ean s al le ga ti on s in an

in di ct m en t are no t m ere su rp lu sa ge

. Thu s, ev en whe re di ffer en t juro rs can ag ree

th at th e of fen se al le ge d was co m m it te d by di ffer en t mann er an d m ean s, ne it he r

co ur t h as ev er tre at ed m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s in an in di ct m en t or

in fo rm at io n a s s om et hi ng whi ch can be ig no red alt og et he r.

The co ur t of ap pe al s wen t well be y on d th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s an al y si s of th e

“ un an im it y ” is su e pr es en te d in Sc ha d v. Ari zo na , ho wev er. It tre at e d t h e th e

Pag e -18-m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s of t h e in fo rm at io n in Vig il ’s cas e as m ere

su rp lu sa ge in co nd uc ti ng it s le ga l su ffi ci en cy an al y si s. It de t erm in ed th at th e

ev id en ce was le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t Vig il ’s co nv ic ti on fo r as sa ul t so lo ng

as th e ev id en ce pr ov ed Vig il ha d co m m it te d th e as sa ul t o f f

e n s e al le ge d by an y

m ean s. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld "[A]n in di ct m en t is su ffi ci en t i f it

, fir st ,

co nt ai ns th e el em en ts of th e of fen se ch arg ed an d fai rly in fo rm s a de fen da nt of th e

ch a r g e a g a i n st whi ch he m us t de fen d, an d se co nd

, en ab le s hi m to pl ead an

acq ui tt al or co nv ic ti on in ba r of fu t u r e pr os ecu ti on s fo r th e sa m e of fen se ."

Haml in g v . Uni te d S ta te s , 41 8 U.S. 8 7, 1 17 (19 74 ).

Th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ an al y si s th us di sp en se s wit h bo th req ui rem en ts of

Haml in g , su pr a, bu t m os t pa rti cu la rly th e req ui rem en t th at th e ch arg e fai rly in fo rm

th e d efen da nt of t he off en se ch arg ed . By ho ld in g t ha t t he Sta te ne ed on ly pr ov e

a ge ne ric “ as sa ul t” of fen se rat he r th an th e sp eci fic “ as sa ul t” of fen se al le ge d in th e

in fo rm at io n – it di sp en se d wit h th e fai r an d ad eq ua te no ti ce req ui rem en t of

Haml in g v. Uni te d St at es , 41 8 U.S. 87
, 11 7 (1 97 4)

. Thi s Co ur t s h ou ld ad dr es s

whe th er m an ne r an d m ean s al le ga ti on s of a ch arg in g in st ru m en t whi ch de sc rib es

an of fen se el em en t can be tre at ed as m ere su rp lu sa ge whe n th ey pr ov id e no ti ce of

th e o ffen se ch arg ed

.

Pag e -19-PRAYER

W HEREFORE, pr em is es co ns id ered

, App el la nt Vig il res pe ct fu ll y req ue st s

th e Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s to gr an t th e am en de d pe t i t i o n f o r di sc ret io na ry

rev ie w i n th is cas e an d or de r th e pa rti es to br ie f each of th e is su es pre se nt ed fo r

rev ie w.

Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,

/s/ W il li am W. Navi do msk is
W ILLIAM W. NAVIDOMSKIS
Att or ne y for App el la nt
70 1 N. St . Vrain
El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 2

Tex . Bar No . 24 05 33 84 Tel. (9 15 ) 73 0- 86 44

Fax (91 5) 97 5- 80 28
de fen se @we sl awy er.co m

Pag e -20-CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE WI TH RULE 9.4

Thi s am en de d pe ti ti on fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w co m pl ie s wi t h th e typevo lu m e li m i t a t i o n s of 9.4 an d co nt ai ns 4,3 73 wor ds

, ex cl ud in g th e pa rts of th e pe ti ti on ex em pt ed by 9

. 4 ( 1 ) ; an d th is pe ti ti on fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w c om pl ie s

w i t h t he typefa ce req ui rem en ts of 9.4 (e) be cau se th is br ie f ha s be en pr ep ared i n

a pr op or ti on al ly sp aced typefa ce us in g Co rel W or d Perf ect in Tim es New Ro m an , 14 -p oi nt

.

/s/ W il li am W. Navi do msk is
W ILLIAM W. NAVIDOMSKIS

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

Thi s is to cert ify th at on Ju ly 17
, 20 15
, a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e Am en de d Pet it io n fo r Dis cret io na ry Rev ie w was de li ve red to Dis tri ct Att or ne y Offi ce: Dis tri ct Att or ne y Ja im e Esp ar za, 50 0 E. San Ant on io

, El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1 i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e Tex as Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc ed ur e.

/s/ W il li am W. Navi do msk is
W ILLIAM W. NAVIDOMSKIS

Pag e -21-APPENDIX

1. Opi ni on an d J ud gm en t

2. In fo rm at io n

Pag e -22-

### 1. Opinion and J udg mentCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant,

v.

VANDA VIGIL,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00273

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20120C 1 0835 )

**O P**  **I N**  **I O**  **N**

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Vanda Vigil a new trial following her

conviction on one count of misdemeanor assault. We reverse.

**BACKGROUND**

Factual History

On August 17, 2011, Vigil, her daughter Alexis Gonzalez, and Alexis’ then

- girlfriend

Stephanie Chavez were present at Coconuts Bar in Central El Paso. Elizabeth Jimenez 1 , the

complaining witness and Alexis’ step

- sister, testified at trial that she and her cousin Ceci

Archuleta came to Coconuts that night to celebrate Archuleta’s twentieth birthday. As they

en tered the bar, Jimenez saw Vigil and Gonzalez. Jimenez stated that Archuleta’s boyfriend,

1 Jimenez’ s name is spelled “Jimenez” and “Jiminez” in the record, because the actual spelling of her name is unclear, we will refer to her as “Jimenez.”2 who was with the group, commented on the fact that Vigil and Gonzalez seemed to be staring at

them. A bartender turned Archuleta away for not having her identificat ion and for not being

over age twenty

- one , so she, her boyfriend, and Jimenez decided to leave.

As they left the bar, the group passed in front of Vigil, Gonzalez, and Chavez. At this

point, the testimony diverges. Jimenez claimed that as she was trying to exit the bar, Vigil and

Gonzalez stopped her and attacked, with Vigil pulling Jimenez’s hair. Vigil and Chavez

disputed Jimenez’s account of events. Chavez testified that Jimenez approached Gonzalez and

that the two exchanged words. According to Vig il, Jimenez called Gonzalez a “disgusting

lesbian.” Jimenez and Gonzalez began to fight and fell to the floor. Vigil maintained at trial that

she left her chair to try and break up the fight, but that before she could reach Jimenez and

Gonzalez, a bounce r arrived and separated the women. Chavez also testified that she did not see

Vigil punch or hit Jimenez

. Procedural History

Following trial, the jury found Vigil guilty of assault. The trial court sentenced Vigil to

ninety days in jail, suspended the s entence, placed her on probation for ninety days, and credited

her with time served. During the course of the sentencing hearing, the trial court remarked:

I’m in a very difficult situation. If this case would have been tried to me, I believe I would hav e found you not guilty, ma’am. I found your testimony to be somewhat credible. I found the other side to be somewhat credible. I did have reasonable doubt. But under our system, a jury makes those determinations. This jury did make that determination. And unless those jury verdicts are set aside, I need to respect and honor those determinations.

Vigil subsequently moved for a new trial on actual innocence, legal insufficiency, and

interest of justice grounds. The trial court granted Vigil a new trial

. The State appealed.

**DISCUSSION**3 In its sole appellate issue, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

ordering a new trial and thereby substituting its judgment for that of the jury when legally

sufficient evidence underpinned Vi gil’s conviction. Vigil counters that the evidence was legally

insufficient to establish her identity as the assailant or any injury to the victim, and, alternatively,

that the trial court’s new trial order is justified by defects in the indictment.

**I.** Co nfession of Error

As a threshold matter, Vigil also maintains that the State confessed error during the new

trial hearing when the prosecutor commented that she did not personally believe Vigil’s guilt

could be established by proof beyond a reasonable dou bt. As such, she is entitled to acquittal

and the State should be “estopped” from further proceedings. Vigil bases her claim on the

following colloquy between the prosecutor and the trial court:

THE COURT: [...] Okay. Let me hear from the State.

. . . [PROSECUTOR]: Before this motion for a new trial was filed, even you and I had a conversation. I agree with you. I don’t

-- if I had been a juror, I would have thought there was reasonable doubt and would have found her not gu ilty as well. That said, I think the crux here is that I wasn’t a juror. The six who were chosen, after voir dire was conducted, were. And it was their job to weigh the facts, weigh the credibility of the witnesses and determine whether or not they

saw rea sonable doubt. So I just wanted to say

-- I don’t know. I just wanted to say that . . .

. THE COURT: Let me ask you a question which will be a difficult question for you, but I think it is a question I need answered.

You are an officer of the court.

[PROSECUTOR]: Right.

THE COURT: Your oath as a district attorney is that you are to seek justice.

[PROSECUTOR]: Right.4 THE COURT: Not to try to just get every notch under your belt and get every conviction, but to seek justice. So as someone who has tak en that oath, what is your position with regard to this Motion?

[PROSECUTOR]: Before

-- I think that’s actually a simple question. Before every trial, even if I’m second

- chairing, I evaluate whether or not there’s probable cause to go forward. If there’s not, it’s easy for me to dismiss. And here I thought there was definitely probable cause. That’s why

--
THE COURT: No one is doubting your decision to go forward and present the

case.

[PROSECUTOR]: Right.

THE COURT: The question I am asking is much mor e narrow, and it is: Right now, today, with the evidence that was presented and with the Motion that is before the Court, what is your position as someone who tried this case and heard all the evidence with regard to this Motion?

[PROSECUTOR]: I argue tha t the verdict should stand

--
THE COURT: All right.

[PROSECUTOR]:

-- because I wasn’t a juror, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

We question whether the prosecutor’s comment that “if [she] had been a juror, [she]

would have thought there was reasonable doubt and would have found her not guilty as well”

constituted an actual confession of error. Even if it did, the State’s confessio n of error is not

dispositive. We grant great weight to the representations of prosecutors in confessing error,

“[b]ut such a confession does not relieve this Court of the performance of the judicial function.”

Saldano v. State , 70 S.W.3d 873, 884 (Tex.C rim.App. 2002)(citing Young v. United States , 315

U.S. 257, 258

- 59, 62 S.Ct. 510, 511, 86 L.Ed. 832 (1942)). “[O]ur judicial obligations compel

us to examine independently the errors confessed” on their merits. Id

. at 884. Assuming

arguendo that the comment did constitute confession of error, that alone does not preclude our5 review of the trial court’s decision or automatically entitle Vigil to acquittal by estoppel. To the

extent she argues otherwise, we overrule Issue Five. We must still review the alleged e rror

. Bearing these things in mind, we proceed.

**II.** New Trial Order **New Trials: Standard of Review and Applicable Law**

We review the trial court’s new trial ruling for abuse of discretion. State v. Herndon , 215

S.W.3d 901, 906 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)

.

A tr ial judge “cannot grant a new trial on mere sympathy, an inarticulate hunch, or

simply because he personally believes that the defendant is innocent or received a raw deal.” Id.

at 907 [Internal quotation marks omitted]. Instead, even where a defendant u rges a new trial on

interest of justice grounds, “[a] motion for a new trial, whether for guilt or punishment, requires

a valid legal claim.” State v. Thomas , 428 S.W.3d 99 , 107 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). “To grant a

new trial for a non

- legal or legally invalid re ason is an abuse of discretion.” Herndon, 215

S.W.3d at 907 (contrasting Texas law with federal appellate precedent )

. The trial court must grant the defendant a new trial for any of the reasons articulated in

T EX .R.A PP .P. 21.3, including “when the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.”

T EX .R.A PP .P. 21.3(h). The trial court retains the discretionary power to grant a new trial for any

legal reason not listed in T EX .R.A PP .P. 21.3. While “[t]he defendant need not establish

reversible error as a m atter of law before the trial court may exercise its discretion in granting a

motion for new trial[,] . . . trial courts do not have the discretion to grant a new trial unless the

defendant demonstrates that his first trial was seriously flawed and that th e flaws adversely

affected his substantial rights to a fair trial.” Herndon, 215 S.W.3d at 909. The Court of

Criminal Appeals has declined to set bright

- line rules for the appellate courts to use in assessing6 the trial court’s exercise of discretion, but the Court has suggested that “a trial court would not

generally abuse its discretion in granting a motion for new trial if the defendant: (1) articulated a

valid legal claim in his motion for new trial; (2) produced evidence or pointed to evidence in the

trial record that substantiated his legal claim; and (3) showed prejudice to his substantial rights

under the standards in Rule 44.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Herndon , 215

S.W.3d at 909

.

**A. Legal Insufficiency** 

In her first three responses to the State’s appeal, Vigil argues we can uphold the new trial

grant because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) she was actually the

person that attacked Jimenez, (2) that Jimenez suffered bodily injury, or (3) that she and not a

third party ca used any of Jimenez’s injuries. We disagree. 2

“In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, a

reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and

determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact

finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lucio v.

State , 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011); see also Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307,

318

- 19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788

- 89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). “Our role on legal sufficiency review is

not to usurp the jury and replace its verdict with our own; instead, we serve as a procedural

safeguard, ensuring that whatever verdict the jury rendered comports with due process.” Urias v.

State , No. 08

– 12

– 0 0090

– CR, 2014 WL 1259397, at *2 (Tex.App.

- - El Paso Mar. 26, 2014, no

2 We note that Vigil presented an actual innocence claim before the trial court. She does not address it in her brief. As the State correctly points out in its brief, actual innocence claims require new evidence not originally presented to the trial court that would have established innocence at trial. Ex parte Garcia
, No. 08

- 11

- 00232

- CR, 2013 WL 1182211, at *5

- *6 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso Mar. 20, 2013, no pet.)(not designated for publication). Since Vigil did not present new evidence in her motion, we conside red her actual innocence claims as having merged with her legal sufficiency claim and review the trial evidence under the legal sufficiency standard.7 pet.)(not designated for publication). “Our role on appeal is restricted to guarding against the

rare occurrence when a factfinder does not act rationally.” [Internal quotation marks omitted].

Isassi v. State , 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). “We do not overturn a verdict

unless it is irrational or unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Smallwood v. State
,

No. 08

- 12

- 00215

- CR, 2014 WL 4269155, at *3 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso Aug. 29, 2014, pet.

ref’d)(not designated for publication).

1. Identity

First, we turn to the issue of identity. Vigil argues that the testimony of both State

witnesses who identified her as the a ttacker is legally in sufficient to uphold her conviction.

Specifically, Vigil maintains that Archuleta never actually saw Vigil touch or hit Jimenez, and

that Jimenez’s testimony is not credible. We agree with Vigil that, from a direct evidence

standpoin t, the identity issue ultimately boils down to a he

- said, she

- said dispute turning on the

testimony of a single witness: Jimenez. However, it is well

- established that the victim’s

testimony alone, if believed, is legally sufficient to support a conviction

. See Gomez v. State
,

No. 08

- 10

- 00276

- CR, 2012 WL 390970, at *8 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso Feb. 8, 2012, no pet.)(not

designated for publication). Since we no longer possess the power to sit as the “thirteenth juror”

and re

- weigh the evidence on a factual suffic iency review in a criminal case, see Isassi , 330

S.W.3d at 638, and since it would be rational for a jury to conclude Vigil assaulted Jimenez

based on Jimenez’s testimony, we cannot overturn the jury’s implicit finding on the issue of

ident ity for legal in sufficiency.

2. Bodily Injury

Second, Vigil contends there is legally insufficient evidence to establish Jimenez suffered8 bodily injury. Vigil points out that Jimenez’s testimony that her lip and knees bled after the

attack is belied by video and photographic evidence in the record. 3 In a video statement given

after the fight, Jimenez appears composed and does not show any visible signs of injury to her

face. Likewise, pictures of her body, including her legs and knees, fail to show any blood or

visible injuries. Even so, visible evidence of physical injury is not necessary to sustain an assault

charge. Bodily injury is defined as “ physical pain , illness, or any impairment of physical

condition[,]” [Emphasis added]

, T EX .P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 1.07(a)(8)(West Supp. 201 4) , and can

encompass “even relatively minor physical contacts so long as they constitute more than mere

offensive touching.” [Internal quotation marks omitted]. Wingfield v. State , 282 S.W.3d 102,

105 (Tex.App.

-- Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref ’d). Jimenez testified that Vigil hit her head and pulled

her hair, and that she felt pain during the attack. This testimony is sufficient to establish that

Jimenez suffered bodily injury.

3. Causation

Finally, Vigil also maintains that even if ident ity and bodily injury were proven beyond a

reasonable doubt, the State failed to prove that Jimenez’s injuries were caused by Vigil and not

Alexis Gonzalez. Vigil correctly notes that the State did not charge Vigil under law of the

parties, and that as su ch, Vigil cannot be held criminally liable for injuries caused by Alexis

Gonzalez.

Even so, this is not fatal. Jimenez testified that both Vigil and Gonzalez attacked her.

Assuming it believed her testimony, a reasonable jury could infer that because Ji menez said both

women attacked her, and because she suffered injuries, at least some of the injuries could be

attributed to Vigil. This point is without merit.

3 We may review “indisputable” video evidence in the record de novo

. State v. Duran , 396 S.W.3d 563, 570

- 71 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013).9 **B. Indictment Defects** 

Finally, Vigil raises two separate complaints about defects in the indictment. First, Vigil

complains that the State’s prosecuting attorney gave a materially inaccurate reading of the

indictment at the trial’s inception by alleging she caused Jimenez bodi ly injury “by pushing or

struggling Elizabeth Jimenez to the ground” when the criminal information actually alleged that

she caused bodily injury “by pushing or throwing Elizabeth Jimenez to the ground[.]” Second,

Vigil argues that the State spelled Jimen ez’s surname two different ways in the information

—

“Jimenez” and “Jiminez”

— and that this constitute a fatal variance between the information and

what the State proved at trial.

We note, and Vigil concedes, that she did not present either of these g rounds to the trial

court in her motion for a new trial. However, Vigil maintains we can address these points

because they concern errors that touch on waiv e able rights. See Turner v. State , 860 S.W.2d

147, 150

- 51 (Tex.App.

-- Austin 1993, pet. granted), r ev’d on other grounds , 897 S.W.2d 78 6

(Tex.Crim.App. 1995). We disagree. In reviewing the new trial grant, “we look to the grounds

pleaded by the movant in the motion and determine whether any of these grounds provide a basis

for granting the new trial.” State v. Fury , 186 S.W.3d 67, 73 (Tex.App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.]

2005, pet. ref’d). Because the trial court has no power to order a new trial order sua sponte , and

because these arguments were never presented to the trial court, they could not form the b asis for

the new trial grant. See State v. Varkonyi , No. 08

- 06

- 00262

- CR, 2008 WL 821580, at *3

(Tex.App.

-- El Paso Mar. 27, 2008, pet. dism’d)(not designated for publication). To the extent

Vigil is attempting to raise these issues on cross

- appeal, we not e that a defendant’s cross

- points

are not cognizable on State’s appeal. State v. Barron , No. 08

- 12

- 00245

- CR, 2012 WL 5515678

(Tex.App.

-- El Paso Nov. 14, 2012, no pet.)( mem. op., not designated for publication)(dismissing10 defendant’s cross

- appeal where Sta te appealed new trial grant); cf. Sanchez v. State , No. 08

- 11

-

00137

- CR, 2014 WL 2810479 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso June 20, 2014, pet. ref’d)(not designated for

publication)(separately addressing defendant’s noticed appeal following disposition of a s tate’s

appeal of a new trial grant); see also State v. Wilkins , No. 05

- 12

- 00154

- CR, 2014 WL 465820, at

*7 (Tex.App.

-- Dallas Feb. 4, 2014 , pet. ref’d )(not designated for publication)(court of appeals

had no jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s cross

- appeal points on s t ate ’ s appeal, even when

defendant properly noticed appeal, because the new trial order the State attacked reversed the

final judgment the defendant sought to attack).

In sum, any defects in the indictment could not have formed the basis of the new trial

g rant because Vigil never presented those grounds to the trial court, and her complaints about the

indictment as cross

- points are not cognizable at this stage. Further discussion of these issues is

unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P

. 47.1.

**CONCLUSION**

Vigil failed to advance any meritorious legal claims in support of her motion for a new

trial. As such, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial. Issue One is

sustained. We reverse the trial court’s order grant ing the motion for new trial and reinstate the

trial court’s judgment of conviction.

May 15, 2015 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant,

v.

VANDA VIGIL,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00273

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120C10835)

**J U D G M E N T**

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was e rror in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion for new trial and

reinstate the trial court’s judgment of conviction, in accordance with our opinion. This decision

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 5 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ , Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

### 2. Inf ormationD.A. CONTROL #12-10345 PID:

OFFENSE: ASSAULT CAUSES BODILY IN.J

D.O.B.: 07/10/68 WARRANT: M12W7593 AGENCY: EL PASO POLICE

( ) CAPIAS REQUESTED 1757605 NCIC: 13990001 INFORMATION 

## JtJ%aa

STATE OF TEXAS vs. VANDAVIGIL 

# cer-J

ADDRESS: 210 WEST REDO RD 708 EL PASO, TX 79932

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS .···-··-

I, t::..gz)bN

, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL PASO, STATE OF TEXAS, PRESENT TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO.1 OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS, IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, AT ITS JULY TERM, A.D. 2012, THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 AND BEFORE THE FILING OF THIS INFORMATION IN SAID COUNTY OF EL PASO, STATE OF TEXAS, VANDA VIGIL, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DEFENDANT,

.
PARAGRAPH A DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CAUSE BODILY INJURY TO ELIZABETH JIMENEZ BY PULLING ELIZABETH JIMINEZ'S HAIR WITH THE DEFENDANT'S HAND,

PARAGRAPH B DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CAUSE BODILY INJURY TO ELIZABETH JIMENEZ BY GRABBING OR SQUEEZING ELIZABETH JIMINEZ'S BREAST WITH THE DEFENDANT'S HAND,

PARAGRAPH C DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CAUSE BODIL YINJURY TO ELIZABETH JIMENEZ BY PUSHING OR THROWING ELIZABETH JIMENEZ TO THE GROUND,

PARAGRAPH D DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGL YOR RECKLESSLY CAUSE BODILY INJURY TO ELIZABETH JIMENEZ BY STRIKING ELIZABETH JIMENEZ ABOUT THE HEAD WITH THE DEFENDANT'S HAND,

SQ AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.

.... 

# -
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR EL PASO COUNTY, STATE OF TEXAS

FILED COURT AT 1 OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS ON "f.Q. AT /..3 .' O'CLOCK, 

## y2 M._

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS