NO. 07-07 -035 0-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER15, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ LEON ESEO SAN CH EZ, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 7-41 5,4 99; HON. JIM BOB DARNEL L, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Leo nese o San chez appe als his conviction s o n tw o cou nts of agg rav ate d assa ult wit h a d e a d ly we a p o n . T h re e is s u e s la y b e fo re u s . He in it ia ll y co n t e n d s t h a th is two convictions v iolate d his rig ht againstdou ble jeo pard y . Th en, he arg ues that the trial court er red i n al l ow i ng th e i nv es ti g at i ng offi c ers t o rei te rat e att r i al w ha t th e v i c ti m s ai d to t he m, and i n doi ng so , t he tr ial co urt bot h deni ed hi m hi s r ig ht t o confront w it ness es and v iol ated the h earsay

r ule

. W e aff ir m the jud g ment.2

Iss ue 1 - Dou bleJe opar dy Appel lan t arg ues in his first is sue that his conv icti on on both count s of ag g ra v ated assau lt w ith a d ead ly

w eap on su bjecte d him to v iolation of his ri ght against dou ble jeop ardy. T he St ate had charge d him w ith 1) inten tiona lly , knowing ly , and recklessly causin g bo dily injury to Mel ind a Agui lar (hi s g ir lfri end) bystr ik ing her w it h a h ard obj ectand usi ng a firear m w hic h i n the manner of it s u se or

i ntended us e w as ca p a b le of caus ing dea th an d serious b odily injury , and 2 ) in t ent iona lly and knowi ngly

thr eateni ng her w it h immi nent bodi ly

i nju ry and usi ng a de adl y

w eapon t hat i n the manner of it s use or

i ntended use w as capab le of caus ing death and s er iou s b odi ly i nju ry . It is appel lan t’ s c ontent ion that thes e al leg ati ons are merely two al ter nati v e w ay s of commi tti ng one cr ime w hic h s ubj ect ed him to pu nis hment tw ic e for that cr ime. W e di sag re e and ov er ru le the i ss ue. T he p rotect ion againstdou ble jeo pard y is i nap plicable w here sepa rate and distinct offenses oc cur

i n t h e s a m e t ra nsacti on. Spr adl ing v. Sta te, 7 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 6 (T e x. Crim. App . 198 9). Th is is true even i f the acts are comm itted close in time to one ano the r. Hutchi ns v. State, 992 S .W .2d 6 29, 6 33 (Te x . App .–A ustin 199 9, pet . ref ’d, un time ly f iled);
see Ma rc otte v. State, No. 07-01- 0418- CR , 2003 T ex . App. L E X IS 225 at *6 ( Tex . Ap p.– Amar il lo Janua ry

10, 2003, n o p e t.) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. And, that is the si tuati on here. Ass ault m a y be co mmitt ed i n s ev eral w ay s. One is to int enti onal ly , k now ing ly or re ck les sl y

ca use bodi ly

i nju ry to someone. T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . §22.01( a) (1 ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. Anothe r is to int enti onal lyor kn ow ing ly

threaten someone w it h i mminent bodi ly i nju ry . Id. §22.01( a) (2 ). Mo re ov er , thes e c ri mes may bec ome “ ag g ra v ated” under3

the P enal C ode ei ther w hen they caus e s er iou s b odi ly i nju ry or the act or

us es or ex hib it s a deadl y w eapon d ur ing thei r commi ss ion

. Id. §22. 02( a) (1 ) & (2 ). Acc ordin g to the S tate, one of ea ch occ ur re d dur ing appel lan t’ s two hour att ack upon Ag uil ar , and bec ause they
w ere di sti nctoffenses , dou ble j eopardy di d notappl y . The record be fo re u s rev eal s t hat Ag uil ar tol d the j ur

y thatappel lan t beg an ass aul ti ng her

i n her “ boy ’s ” ro om. S he w as re mov ing a s uit cas e f ro m t h e c loset w hen app ellantst ruck h er. S he w as the n dragged by the hair into the midd le of the roo m where he c on ti nu ed h i s a tt ac k

. E v en tu al ly , the coup l e fou nd t he ms el v es i n Ag ui l ar ’ s b ed roo m. Onc e the re , app ell ant retr iev ed a handg un from t he c los e t a n d hi t Ag uil ar w it h i t on her h e a d . T h is b lo w re su lt e d in he r su f fe rin g a g a s h o n he r he a d w h ich be gan bl e e d in g. Acc ording t o t h e vic ti m, “ [t] here w as li ke blo od ev er yw here . . . . ” Around t his ti me, s he als o heard the “ snap” of the g un bei ng fired, t houg h no proje cti le w as dis charg ed. Soon, appel lan t t old Ag uil ar to enter the shower and w ash off the b loo d on her

. She compl ied , and as sh e di d, s he woul d peer out the s li din g sh ow er

doors a nd s ee th e bul let s and g un. Furthe rmore , during this break f rom th e ph y sical assau lt, app ellantw as no tab ly cal m at t imes

. And, w hen c alm, he woul d al so appear peni tent. Y et, Ag uil ar noti ced that he woul d “ flare up all ov er ag ain ”; “

. . . itw as jus t g oin g ki nd of bac k a nd fort h.” I t was at this time , app ellantstate d tha t 1) the re w ere two bullet s in the gun, an d “one w as for [her] and one w as for him, ” and 2) he w as going to leav e bu t tha t she sho uld no t call the po lice becau se by

the ti me she di d, “ he c oul d hav e al re ady

. . . hur t s omebody

i n my famil y , or [he r] boys.” Next, Ag uil ar

w as direct ed by

appel lan t t o ex itthe shower and g et i n bed. After

sh e did , he spok e of seei ng demons and “sm ili n g” s p irits i n the room. Ag uil ar i nv it ed hi m to4

pray w it h her , atw hic h ti me appel lan t g re w ca lm, ask ed how

her i nju ri es had hap pened, and fell as lee p. In c onsi der ing the aforementi oned ev ide nce, w e not e v ar iou s s tag es to t he i nci dent. T he f irst involv ed actua l, physical v iolence w here in app ellantbea t the v ictim w ith ha nds, feet, and fire ar m. I t was dur ing thi s p er iod thatsh e heard the w eapon b ein g di sc harg ed or mis fire d. The sec ond s tag e began once appel lan t w it ness ed th e bl ood c oming from her scalp an d told her to show er. No longer physically v iolent , his acts grew psy cholo gical in nature w it h him 1) grow ing calm only to become ang ry

ag ain , 2)threateni ng to use one of the tw o bul let s on her, 3) threateni ng to har m her famil y and chi ldren if she c ontacted t he pol ic e, an d 4) sp eaki ng of demons and s pir it s. W hil e different in many respects from the factual sc enar io in Rui z v. Sta te , N o. 13
- 01- 0157- CR , 200 2 Tex . App. L E X IS 735 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ja nuar y 31, 2002, no pet.)( not desi g nated for publi cat ion ), our s it uati on i s a ki n to that in Ruiz i n one impor

tant
w ay , and because of that, w e find Ruiz helpf ul. Th ere, th e ap pellan t f irst struck his v ictim out side a ba r w hile the v ictim was exiting a v ehicle. He then sto ppe d, en tered the ba r, spok e br iefly

w it h s omeone, and retur ned to the v icti m onl y to str ik e him agai n. That the attac ks oc cur re d i n i denti fiabl e, di sc re te s tag es led the Ruiz cour t to conc lud e that the appel lan t was not b ein g tw ic e puni shed for the same cr ime. R ather , tw o di fferent a ss aul ts act ual ly oc cur re d w hic h ent it led the Stat e to prosec ute Rui zfor both free of anyl imi tati ons impos ed by

doubl e j eopardy

. Id. at * 4- 5. As a llu d e d t o a b o ve, we t o o h a ve a s ce n a rio d e p ict in g two d if fe re n t a tt a ck s. Th o u gh ra ther cl ose in ti me, th e l atter arose after a break from the former , that break comi ng w hen5

Ag uilar en tered th e s how er . Mo re ov er , t he as saul ts chang ed i n nat ure from ph y si cal to psy chol og ic al. G iv en th is , w e s ee no re ason to s tray from t he hol din g i n Ruiz

. The Stat e is co rrect ; app ell ant was not tw ic e tr ied , conv icted, and puni shed for the s ame offense but rathe r fo r two dif

feren t crimes. T hateach crime v iol a t ed th e sam e pe nal sta tute is inc onse quenti al. Ma rc otte v. State, s upr a. C onseq uentl y , t he l imi tati ons impos ed by doubl e j eopardy

w ere notex ceede d. Issue 2 - C onf

ronta tion Clau se Next, appel lan t arg ues that he w as deni ed his r ig ht to confront w it ness es w hen t he tr ial co urt al lowed th e i nv est ig ati ng pol ic e off ic ers to rei terate w hat Ag uil ar had tol d the m about the a ss aul ts, w ho c ommitt ed th em, and how they trans pired. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. W hen the w it ness w ho uttered the w ords that are bei ng re peated is presentat tr ial for cross-ex am inatio n, th e accu sed is notbeing den ied his rig ht to conf ront tha t w itness. Eust is v. Sta te, 191 S.W .3d 879 , 886 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1 4 Dist.] 200 6, pe t. ref ’d); th Han son v. State , 180 S.W .3d 7 26, 7 31 ( Tex

. App.–W aco 2005, no pet .) ; Mo or e v . St ate , 169 S.W .3d 467, 470 n.8 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2005, pet. re f’d)

. Ag uila r was both presentfor a nd te sti fied attr ial

. Thus, appel lan t had the oppor tuni ty to confro nt he r. Iss ue 3 - Hea rs ay Finally , app ellantco nte nds tha t the sa me out-of-court stat em ent s w e ad dresse d in is sue two w ere inadmi ss ibl e hears ay and, therefore , subj ectto ex cl usi on on that g ro und. Si nce the t ri al cour

t admi tted them, itpur por tedl y er re d. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. As previously

men tione d, Aguilar a ppe ared a nd testif ied at trial. She told the jury
w hat o cc ur re d and ex pla ine d how appell ant both beat and threat ened her w it h his hands6

and w it h the g un. M oreov er , one or more off ic ers t est ified aboutse ein g bl ood i n the chamber of the handg un, a ble edi ng g ash on Ag uil ar ’s head, and her “ extremely

swoll en” face a nd e y es. Moreover, appe llant do es no t question o n a p p e a l t he a dm ission of this ev ide nce. N or

does he d is pute the s imi lar ity between i t and w hat t he officers s aid Ag uil ar told th em . So, w hat w e have before us is the sam e evidence being presen ted to the jury t h ro u gh m u lt ip le so u rc e s t o p ro ve t h e s a m e fa c t s . Itis t h is re d u n d a n cy o r c u m u la t ive nature of the ev ide nce that prov es fatal to appell ant’ s arg ument. This i s s o bec ause the admis si on of i nadmis si ble ev ide nce (s uch as hearsay ) can be re ndered har mles s by the re cei pt of admi ss ibl e ev ide nce prov ing the same fact s. Mayes v. Sta te , 816 S.W .2d 7 9, 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; Ni no v . St ate , 223 S. W .3d 7 49, 7 54 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 th Di st. ] 200 7, no pet. ); Cha m pio n v . St ate , No. 06- 04–0141- CR , 2005 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 3733 at *9 (T ex. A p p . – T e x arkan a May 17, 20 05, no pe t.). And, upo n revi ewi ng the en tire re cord, we hol d tha t t o be tr ue here. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.