NO. 07-06 -029 7-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 A OC TOBER8, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ MICHAEL ERIC JONES, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 39 9 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B EXA R CO UNT Y; TH NO . 200 5CR4158; HO NO RA BLE J UA NI TA VASQ UE Z- GAR DN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Mi chael Er icJo nes, w as conv ic ted by a jur y of t he offense of ag g ra v ated ro bber y and the s ame j u ry , after findi ng the enhanc ement po rt ion of the i ndi ctmenttr ue, sent enced appel lan t t o 52 y ears i n the T ex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion
. Appel lan t attac ks the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt t hroug h four is sues cl aimi ng er ro r in that: 1) the tr ial cour

t ru led that he w as onl y enti tl ed to hav e new

co unsel appoi nted one ti me, 2) the tr ial co urt refused to al low hi m to h ire c ounse l of hi s c hoi ce, 3) tr ial co unsel w as2

inef fective, and 4) the tr ial court ref used to i nstructthe jury on th e lesser includ ed o f fense of theft. W e rev erse. Fac tual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und On O cto ber

26, 2004, 81 y ear old Anna Cl ar k, the v ic ti m, w as w ait ing at a bus st op in San Anto nio. W hile w aiting, som eon e cam e f rom behin d Clark and snat ched the pu rse off her sh oul der
. As a re sul t, Cl ar k’ s ey eg las ses became dis lod g ed from her face and sh e beg an to fall
. Cl ar k g ra bbed a gro ce ry c a rt s he had broug ht fro m the g ro cer y st ore for suppo rtand, by

the ti me she l ooked up, all sh e s aw w as the b ack

of the p er petrator
. At t he s ame ti me thes e ev ents we re u n fold ing , Ed uardo C amarg o and his w ife, Bl anca, w ere pas si ng by the int ersec ti on next t o the bus st op. Eduardo obs er v ed appe ll ant w alk ing tow ard C lar k from the re ar . Eduardo te sti fied th at he obs er v ed appe ll ant p ull the p u rs e o f f o f C l a r k a n d f le e . He fo llo wed ap p e lla n t a n d w a tc h e d hi m en te r a re d Do d ge Ne o n a u t o m o b il e a n d sp e d o f f
. Ed u a rd o fo ll o we d t h e r e d Ne o n a n d B la n c a wro t e d o wn the l ic ense pla te nu mber and c all ed 911 to repor t w hat t hey

had obser

v ed. The Ca marg os ev entual ly

l ostsi g ht of the red N eon and retur ned t o the bus st op. Bla n ca ga v e the infor mati on about the red D odg e N eon t o the pol ic e at the b us sto p. The pol ic e c heck ed the l ic ense pla te nu mber tha t Bl a n ca r e p orted a nd i t w as to s how n to bel ong on a red Dod g e N e o n b e lon g ing to Esmerald a C . Va sq uez . The records als o i ndi cat ed th at, four day s before the of

fense in ques ti on, a m ale dri v er m atc hin g the g eneral desc ri pti on of the p e rp e t ra t o r wa s t ic k e t e d in t h e Ne o n . De t e c t ive B rya n T a yl o r p r e p a r e d a p h o t o a rr a y, inc lud ing a pi ctu re of appel lan t, and show ed it to Eduard o. Eduardo i mmediat ely i denti fiedAtt r i a l , t h e r e qu e s twa s fo r t h e o f fe n s e o f t h e f to f a p e rs o n , wh ic h we h a ve 1 cons tr ued t o mean t heft. 3 appel lan t’ s p hoto as the man that took the p urse and fled in the red N eon. Appel lan t w as t h e n a rr e s t e d a n d su b s e qu e n t ly i n d ic t e d fo r t h e o f fe n s e o f a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry. After appel lan t’ s a rrest , on Ja n u a ry 23, 2005, he w as appoi nted an at tor ney . On July 18, 200 5, ap pellan t requested that the court disch arge his attorne y and app oint h im a ne w atto rney. T he co urt com plied wi th th e request w ith the adm on ition th at th e cou rt w oul d onl y

appoi nt a new

att or n e y o n e t im e . On O cto ber 17, 2005, appel lan t w as app ointe d an oth er atto rney, w ho se rv ed throughou t the trial. The re w as no comp laint in the record aboutthe new att or ney , unt il M ay

2, 2006, the d ay

the cas e w as setfor tr ial
. On th at da te , at a pret r i al he ar i ng , be fore br i ng i ng i n th e j ur y pa ne l , ap pe l l an t for

t he fi rs t ti me c o m p la in e d a b o u th is s e c o n d a t t o rn e y a n d re qu e s t e d t h e co u rta p p o in ta n o t h e r a t t o rn e y. The tr ial co urt refused to do so. Appel lan t then ask ed if he coul d hire an attor ney . The tr ial cour t s aid he c oul d, ho w ev er , th e t ria l w as g oin g to proceed as sc hedul ed. The tr ial proce ede d to verdict, the jury fo u n d t h e a ppe llant guilty of agg rav ate d robb eryand this appeal foll ow s. W e w il l firs t add re ss the is sue of the l ess er i ncl uded c harg e i nst ru cti on. Lesse r Include d Of

fense Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d by refusing to g iv e a l ess er in clu d e d ch a rge o n th e o f fe n se o f th e f

t. Ap p e lla n t requ e st e d th e le ss e r in clu d e d ch a rge 1 in a time ly

m ann er a nd th e sam e w as ref used bythe trial court. The refore, if the trial court er re d, t he appe ll ant need onl y show that the er ro r w as one t hat i s “ cal cul ated to i nju re theF urther referenc e to the Tex as Penal C ode w il l be by referenc e to § ___. 2 4 rig hts of the de fend ant .” Alman z a v . Sta te, 686 S.W .2d 157 , 171 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 4). W hen t his tes t i s a ppl ied , t he c og ent i nq uir y i s d id the e rror , i f any , affect th e s ubst anti al righ ts of the appel lan t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4
. 2 ( b )
. M o re re c e n t l y , t h e C o u rto f C ri minal Appeal s h as sta ted t hat a conv ic ti on shoul d not be ov ertur ned and rev ersed unl ess , from an ex aminat ion of the e nti re record, w e c an c oncl ude th a t t he er ro r mayhav e had subs tanti al influ ence on th e out come o f the proc eedi ng . Bur nett v . St ate, 88 S. W .3d 6 33, 637 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. To cons ti tute a les ser inc lud ed offense, an offense must 1) be est abl is hed by proof of the same or less tha n all of the facts required to e stab lish the com mission of the of fense charg ed; 2 ) differ from the o ff ense charg ed onl y in the re spect that a l ess se ri ous inj ur y or ri sk of inj ur y to the s ame person, proper ty , or publ ici nteres t suff ic es to es tabl is h i ts com mission ; 3) dif

fer f ro m t h e o f

fense charged on ly

in the respe ct tha t a less culpa ble mental st ate s uff ic es to es tabl is h i ts commi ss ion ; or 4) co nsi st of an att empt t o commi t t he off ense charg ed or an other w is e inc lud ed offense. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 37.09 (V er non Su pp. 2 005)
. The Stat e c onced es that theft i s a l ess er i n cl uded offense of ro bber y . See E ar ls v . St ate, 707 S.W .2d 82, 84 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)
. Fur ther , as al leg ed in the ind ic tment, the e lementthatel ev ates thi s c ase to ag g ra v ated sta tus i s t he ag e of the v ictim coup led w ith action s t hatt hrea ten o r pla ce the v ictim in fear of imm inen t bod ily

injury or deat h. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29. 03(a )(3)(A) (Verno n 20 03). T h e re fo re, it 2 follo w s t hat t heft is a l ess er i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ate d r o b b e ry, as all eg ed i n the ind ic tment. Se e Hal l v . State, 225 S.W .3d 524, 535 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ( hol din g that5

the “ ple adi ng s a pproach” i s the firs t ste p in deter mini ng w hether a par ty may be e nti tl ed to a less er incl uded of

fense inst ru cti on)
. The sec ond step of the analy si s req uires a rev iew of the ev ide nce admit ted a t t ri al to de ter mine if the appel lan t is e n ti tl ed to the les ser inc lud ed i nst ru cti on. Id. at 5 3 6. Anythi ng more tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce maybe suf f icient to ent itle app ellant to the requeste d cha rg e. Id . Th e evidence nee d on ly estab lish the l ess er

i ncl uded offense as a v ali d, rati onal al ter nati v e to the c harg ed offense. Id. In t he present cas e, the re cord dis cl oses thatthe is sue of threateni ng or pl aci ng the v ic ti m in fear of

imminentbodil y

inju ry or death w as hotl y

co ntes ted. C lar k t est ified thatsh e nev er sa w the appel lan t unt il h e wa s ru n nin g aw ay . Fur ther , s he te sti fied th at s he w as afrai d of fall ing and poss ibl y breaki ng a bone. Her tes ti mony about bei ng afrai d w as capab le of differ ing i nter pretati ons. On the one hand she ind ic ated that she had a g eneral fear of fall ing and break in g a bone, w hic h w as the reason g iv en for hav ing the shopp ing car t for sta bil ity . Al ter nati v ely , she coul d hav e been say ing that she w as a f ra id of fall ing becau se of the purse bei ng snat ched from her shoul der
. C amarg o tes ti fied th at, w hen he re tur ned t o the sc ene, Cl ar k w as sc ared and w as shak ing
. How ev er , C lar k’ s fear after the fact i s n ot c oncl usi v e ev ide nce that she w as pla ced in fear of i mminentbodi ly i nju ry at the ti me of the t aki ng of the purse. Rat her , the tes ti mony and the i nferenc es that a j ur y may make from thattes ti mony i s a q uest ion for t he j ur y to deci de unde r the a ppropr iat e instructio n f rom th e cou rt. The initial police of f icer on the sce ne indicat ed tha t the of fense w as on e of

“purse snat ching.” Aft er rev iew ing the record, it app ears the re w as at lea st more than a sci nti ll a of

ev ide nce to suppor

t the the or

y thatappel lan t w as g uil ty of onl y the6

of fense of theft. A c c o rd in gly , app ellantw as en titled to the lesse r included of fense ins tr uct ion of theft. Id. W e no w turn to th e issue of

harm . A s st ate d abo v e, the st and ard of review for such a situa tion is tha t w e look at the ent ire record to det ermin e if the error af fecte d ap pellan t’s subs tanti al ri g hts
. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2(b). T he harm from den y in g t h e le s s e r of fense instructio n stem s f rom th e po ten tial to place the jury in the dilem m a of convicting for a g re ater offense in w hic h the jury has reason abl e doubtor rele asi ng enti re ly

from c ri minal li abi li ty a pe rs on th e j ur

y is c o n vinc ed i s a w ro ng doer
. Ma ste rs on v . St ate, 155 S. W .3d 167, 171 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. The les ser offense is an a v ail abl e c ompro mis e. Id. In the p re s e n tca s e , a p p e ll a n twa s se n t e n c e d u n d e r t h e t e rm p ro vid e d fo r a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry, a first deg re e felon y. § 2 9.03( b)
. A first deg re e felony ca rr ies a pu nis hment rang e from fiv e to 99 y ears or li fe i n pr is on. § 12.32. W it h the enhanc ement prov is ion found tr ue by the jury the pu nishm entrange is from 15 to 9 9 y ears or life imprison me nt. § 12.4 2(c)(1). Puni shmenton t he req uest ed l ess er inc lud ed offense of t heft is deter mined by the v alu e of the pro perty taken. § 31.0 3(e)(2)-(3). Tho se of fense s carry a term of conf inem entin jail for si x m o n t h s a n d o n e y e a r , re s p e c t i v e l y . § § 1 2
. 2 2 , 1 2
. 2 1
. W i t h t h e e n h a n c e me nt parag ra ph found tr ue by the jur y , the puni shment ra ng e for a Cl ass A mi sdemeano r is 90 day s t o one y earconfinement. § 12. 43( a)
. For a C las s B mis demeanor , w it h the enhanc ement parag ra ph, the appli cabl e punis hment rang e i s 3 0 to 180 day s c onfinement. § 12. 43( b)
. In t his ca se, the appel lan t w as sent enced to se rve a ter m of confinementof 52 y ears i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. U ndert h e se fact s a nd w it h the is sue of fear

to Cl ar k b ein g the paramount c ontes ted is sue, the re fusal to grant t he l ess er7

inc lud ed i nst ru cti on di d hav e a subs tanti al influ ence on th e out come o f the c ase. Bu rn ett, 88 S. W .3d at 637
. T he jury was d enie d the opp ortun ity to evaluate the ap pellan t’s cond uct in lig ht of the lesse r cr imina l of

fense . Instea d, th ey w ere face d w ith the decision to release a pers on w ho had tak en adv antag e of an el der ly i ndi v idu al or

to conv ic t hi m of ag g ra v ated ro bber y . This i s the ex act moral dil emma for a jur y to w hic h Ma ste rs on spok e. M ast erson, 155 S. W .3d a t 171
. Acc ordin g ly , t he dec is ion to deny the les ser

i ncl uded i nst ru cti on w as rev ersible error. Hav ing co ncl uded t hat t he tr ial cour t commi tted re v ersi ble er ro r in conne cti on w it h the l ess er

i ncl uded offense i nst ru cti on, w e need not a ddress the app e lla n t’ s remaini ng is sues . T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. Con cl usi on Hav ing deter mined that the tr ial cour t co m m it te d re v ersi ble er ro r, w e re v erse the judgme nt of

the trial court an d rem and the case for a new tr ial.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Publ is h.