CAUSE NO. PD-0429-15 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS FRANCISCO DURAN, Petitioner v. STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent. On Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals Cause Number 13-12-00344-CR STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF

Luis V. Saenz Cameron County District Attorney René B. González Assistant District Attorney Consuelito Martínez Associate Attorney 964 East Harrison Street Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax: (956) 544-0869 Attorneys for the State of Texas PD-0429-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/15/2015 9:16:56 AM Accepted 10/15/2015 12:32:58 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

Tab le of C on te nt s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Sal ut at io n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 St at em en t o f th e Fac ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Su m m ary of th e Arg um en t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 St at e’s res po ns e to Pet it io ne r’s fir stgro un d fo r rev ie w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sub- is su e 1 (a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sub- is su e 1 (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Sub- is su e 1 (c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Sub- is su e 1 (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ianc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

- i -INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Asb erryv. Stat e , 81 3 S .W .2d52 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 19 91 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Bal l v. Un it ed

Stat es , 47 0 U.S. 8 56 (19 85 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ban ks v. Stat e , 70 8 S .W .2d46 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Blo un t v. Sta te , 25 7 S .W .3d71 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 1 0, 1 2 Bro ok s v. Sta te , 84 7 S .W .2d24 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Dur an v. Stat e , No. 1 3- 12 -0 03 44 -CR, 2 01 3 WL 33 78 32 7 (Tex . App .--Co rp us Ch ris ti Ju ly 3, 20 13 , pet . gra nt ed ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 1 2 Ell is on v. Stat e , 42 5 S .W .3d63 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 14 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . 13 Ex Par te Gret te nb er

g , 79 0 S .W .2d61 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 90 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Herri ng v. Stat e , 75 2 S .W .2d16 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 19 88 ), re man de d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , 75 8 S .W .2d28 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . 7 La nder s v. Sta te , 95 7 S .W .2d55 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

- i i -Polk v. Sta te ,

69 3 S .W .2d39 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 85 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 12 Royv. Stat e , 76 S.W .3d87 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 20 02 , no pe t.).. . . . . . . . . 13 Rub en v. Stat e , 64 5 S .W .2d79 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 83 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 12 Sta tute s Tex . Pen al Co de § 1 2.4 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Tex . Pen al Co de § 2 2.0 2( a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tex . Pen al Co de § 3 0.0 2( d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Tex . Pen al Co de § 3 0.0 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rule s Tex . R. App . P. 38 .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tex . R. App . P. 43 .2(b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

- i i i -CAUSE NO. PD-04 29 -1 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ IN TH E COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ FRANCISCO DURAN, Peti tio ner v. STATE OF TEXAS, Res po nden t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ STATE ’S APPELLAT E BRI EF

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TO TH E HO NORABLE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS: COMES NO W , Res po nd en t, the STATE OF TEXAS , by an d t hr ou gh th e Cam ero n C ou nt y

Dis tri ctAtt orne y , th e Hon or ab le Lui s V. Sae nz , and , pu rs ua ntto Ru le 38 .2 o f th e Tex as Ru le s o f App el late Pro cedur e, fi le s thi s, i ts App el late Bri ef in th e ab ov e-s tyledan d -num be redcau se of a ct io n, an d i n s up po rt t he reo f, wou ld sh ow thi s Ho no rab le Co urt as fol lo ws:

State’s B rief Pag e 1STATE MENT OF TH E FACTS

The Pet it io ne r was in di ct ed , ina m ul ti -co un t i nd ic tm en t, wi th th e o ffen se s of : co un t o ne - Burg lary

of aHabi ta ti on (whi le co m m it ti ng or a tt em

pt in g t o co m m itth e und erl y in g fe lo ny of Ag gr av at edAss au lt ), a fi rs t d eg ree f el on y , Tex. Pen al Co de § 3 0.0 2; co un t two - Ag gr av at edAss au ltwith ade ad ly w eap on ; an d, to bo th of t he se co un ts was a dd edanen hanc em en t co un t al le gi ng a pr io r co nv ic ti on . (C.R. p. 1 5) . The Pe ti ti on er was fou ndGui lty of b oth C ountI, Bu rg lary of aHabi ta ti onCo m

m it ti ng Agg rav at edAss au lt , andCo un t II , Agg rav at edAss au ltwith aDead ly W eap on . (C.R. pp . 78 -7 9) . Prio r to pro ceed in g to pu ni sh m en t b y

th e sa m e jury, the Sta te ab an do ne d C ou ntII, du e to Doubl e Je op ardy co nc ern s re gard in g p un is hm en t. The jury fo un d t he all eg at io n i n t he en ha nc em en t co un t t o b e true an d s en te nc edPet it io ne r to 25 y ears co nf in em en t o n Co un t I. (R.R . Vol . 5, p . 57 ). Ther eaft er, Pet it io ne r so ug htrev ie w of h is co nv ic ti on an d the Co urt o f App eal s af firm ed , bu t m od ifi edth e tr ia l co urt’s jud gm en t. The Co urt o f App eal s h el d t ha t the jud gm en t o f th e tr ia l co urt s ho ul d be “ m od ifi edto refl ectth atth e St at e ab an do ne d C ou ntII b efo re the pu ni sh m en t ph as e an d a ffi rm at iv el y

st at es th atpu ni sh m en t was ass es se d o nl y on Co un t I.” Dur an v. Stat e , No. 1 3- 12 -0 03 44 -CR, 2 01 3 WL 33 78 32 7, at*1 (Tex . App .-- Co rp us Ch ris ti Ju ly 3, 20 13 , pet . gra nt edJu ly 1, 20 15 ). Add it io na ll y , th e Co urt o f State’s B rief Pag e 2App eal s co nc lu de d tha t the Defen dant ’s con vi ct io n b y th e jury of Bu rg lary

of a Hab it at io n wi th th e und erl y in g o ffen se of Ag gr av at edAss au ltsu ffi ci en tl y supp orte d the tri al co urt’s jud gm en t tha t a d ead ly w eap on ha d b eenus ed . The Co urt o f App eal s d el et edth e “ sp eci al is su e” l an gu ag e fro m th e o rig in al tri al co urt de ci si on . This lan gu ag e was rem ov edinord er t o re fle ctth atth e d ead ly w eap on fin di ng en te redby the jury res ul te d fr om th e Defen da ntha vi ng be enfou ndgu il ty as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Thi s C ou rt h as gra nt edrev ie w onPet it io ne r’s fir stgro un d, o nl y , whi ch co nt ai ns fou r sub- is su es . In the fir stsub- is su e, Pet it io ne r co m pl ai ns th atth e Co urt of App eal s erredinm od ifyin g the tri al co urt’s jud gm en t, s uc h tha t a s eco ndde gr ee fel on y bu rg lary off en se was s ub se qu en tl y

“ m od ifi ed ” to a fi rs t d eg ree B ur gl ary of a Hab it at io n. Th e St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t s ai d m od ifi cat io n d idno t o ccu r an d tha t Pe ti ti on er was pro pe rly puni sh edfor th e b ur gl ary as a fi rs t d eg ree f el on y . Inhi s s eco ndsub- is su e, Pet it io ne r co m pl ai ns th atth e Co urt o f App eal s erredin m od ifyin g the tri al co urt’s jud gm en t b y eli m in at in g the word s “ sp eci al is su e” i n th e d ead ly w eap on fin di ng . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the Co urt o f App eal s d idno t err init s m od ifi cat io n o f th e o rig in al jud gm en t b y rem ov in g t he State’s B rief Pag e 3“ sp eci al is su e” fr om th e d ead ly w eap on lan gu ag e. Insub- is su es 1(c ) an d 1 (d ), Pet it io ne r co m

pl ai ns th atth e Co urt o f App eal s erredby fail in g t o v acat e th e jeop ardy -b arre d c on vi ct io n fr om th e tr ia l co urt’s o rig in al jud gm en t, an d a s a co ns eque nc e h e al le ge s h e su ffer eda vi ol at io n o f hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n ag ai ns t Do ub le Jeo pa rdy . The St at e res po nd s tha t s uc h avi ol at io n h as no t t ak en pl ace.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES St at e’s Resp on se to Peti ti on er ’s Fir st Gro un d f or Revi ew Inhi s Pe ti ti on forDis cret io na ry Rev ie w, Peti ti on er s ta te s h is fir stGrou nd fo r Rev ie w as fo ll ows : 1. The Co urt o f App eal s erredinaffi rm in g a ndm od ifyin g the jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onan d i n p art ic ul ar: a. by m od ifyin g t he jury’ s co nv ic ti on fro m a se co ndde gr ee fel on y of b ur gl ary to a fi rs t d eg ree f el on y bu rg lary by ret ai ni ng anin di ctm en t co un t o f ag gr av at edass au ltwith a d ead ly w eap on th atwas aba nd on edby the pro se cu ti on ; b. by m od ifyin g t he jud gm en t t o d el et e th e wor ds “ Sp eci al Is su e” i n the de ad ly w eap onfin di ng so th atth e St at e’s ab an do nm en t o f Co un t II be cam e a l eg al sh oe th atfit th ei r m od ifi cat io n( s) ; c. by fail in g t o v acat e th e d oubl e jeop ardy ba rred co nv ic ti on (s ) as reque st edan d a gr eedbe twee n d efen se State’s B rief Pag e 4co un se l an d the Sta te App el la te Co un se l, t o wi t, the ag gr av at edass au ltwith ade ad ly w eap on ; d. by fail in g t o re co gn iz e th e p la in erro r of pe ti ti on er b ei ng de pr iv edof afai r tr ia l i n v io la ti on of t he Fif th Am en dm en t’s d oubl e jeop ardy claus e. Thi s Ho no rab le Co urt g ran te d re vi ew on th is fir stgro un d o nl y . Peti ti on er’s br ie f in supp ort o f hi s p .d.r., res ta te s thi s g ro un d fo r rev ie w andth enarg ue s i ss ue s whi chap pe ar t o b e b ey on d the sco pe of t hi s g ro un d fo r rev ie w, whi chin cl ud e at ta ck in g the act io ns of t he tri al co urt i n m od ifyin g t he jud gm en t h erei n, an d arg ui ng th athi s s en te nc e was il le ga l. Fo r th is reas on , th e St at e wil l co nf in e it s res po ns iv e b rie f to th e g ro un d l is te d i n t he pe ti ti on fordi sc ret io na ry rev ie w, and wil l i gn or e th e arg um en ts inPet it io ne r’s Bri ef wh ic h e xc eedth e sc op e o f th e rev ie w gra nt ed . Su b- is su e 1 (a

) Insub- is su e 1 (a), Pe ti ti on er ar gu es th atth e Co urt o f App eal s erredin affi rm in g a ndm od ifyin g the jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on by m od ifyin g t he jury’ s co nv ic ti on fro m

a se co ndde gr ee fe lo ny of b ur gl ary to a fi rs t d eg ree f el on y bu rg lary by retai ni ng anin di ctm en t co un t o f ag gr av at edass au ltwith ade ad ly weap on th atwas aba nd on edby the pro se cu ti on . In re sp on se to sub- is su e 1 (a), the St at e wou ldno te th atPet it io ne r was ch arg edinCo un t I o f th e in di ctm en t as

State’s B rief Pag e 5fo ll ows :

Fran ci sc o Du ran , Jr... di d t he n a ndth ere i nt en ti on al ly or kn ows lying en te r a h ab it at io n, wi th ou t the effec ti ve co ns en t o f Gon zal o Go nz al ez, th e o wne r th ereo f, an d a tt em pt edto co m

m itor c omm it te d t he fel on y of fen se of Ag gr av at edAss au lt . (C.R. 1 5) . The o ffen se inco un t I, the refo re, as ch arg ed , is a fi rs t degre e fel on y un de r se ct io n 3 0.0 2( d) of t he Pen al Co de , bec au se itall eg es th atth e p rem is es are a habi ta ti on , andfurth er, i t al le ge s tha t Pe ti ti on er en te redth e h ab it at io n a ndhe co m m it te d o r at te m

pt edto co m

m ita fel on y

othe r th anfel on y

th eft , i.e. , agg rav at ed as saul t. Se e Tex. Pe na l Co de § 3 0.0 2( d) . The St at e’s ab an do nm en t o f Co un t II ha d n o e ffec t o n the all eg at io ns of C ou ntI. Nev erthe le ss , eve n i f th is Co urt wer e to de te rm in e th atth e St at e’s ab an do nm en t o f th e Agg rav at edAss au ltch arg e inCo un t II wou ldha ve so m eh ow affe ct edth e al le ga ti on s i n C ou ntI an d wo ul d h av e reduc edth e b ur gl ary co un t fro m a fi rs t d eg ree f

el on y to a se co ndde gr ee fe lo ny, the Sta te res po nd s b y as se rti ng th atth e in di ctm en t al so co nt ai ne d a n e nh an cem en t co un t, wh ic h t he jury fo un d t o b e tr

ue . (R.R. Vol . 5, p . 57 ). Ther efo re, ev enif Pe ti ti on er i s co rrec t i n hi s ar gu m en t tha t the all eg at io n i n C ou ntI was asec on d d eg ree f el on y (a p oi nt whi chth e St at e v eh em en tl y de ni es ), th e b ur gl ary was ne ve rth el es s co rrec tl y pu ni sh edas afir stde gr ee b ecau se of t he en ha nc em en t co un t. Se e Tex. Pe na l Co de

State’s B rief Pag e 6§ 1 2.4 2.

Su b- is su e 1 (b

) Insub- is su e 1 (b ), Pet it io ne r co m pl ai ns th atth e Co urt o f App eal erre d b y m od ifyin g the jud gm en t t o d el et e th e wor ds “ Sp eci al Iss ue ” in th e d ead ly w eap on fin di ng so th atth e St at e’s ab an do nm en t o f Co un t II be cam e a l eg al sh oe th atfit th ei r m od ifi cat io n( s) . In re sp on se to is su e 1 (b ), th e St at e res po nd s b y no ti ng th at anap pe ll at e co urt h as au th or ity to “ m od ify the tri al co urt’s jud gm en t an d a ffi rm it as m od ifi ed .” Se e Tex. R. Ap p. P. 4 3.2 (b ). “ App el la te Co urts ha ve freque nt ly refo rm edjud gm en ts to co rrec t i m pr op er rec it at io ns or o m is si on s re la ti ng to pu ni sh m en t.” Asb erryv. Stat e , 81 3 S .W .2d52 6, 5 30 (Tex . App .--Dal la s 1 99 1, pe t. re f’d); se e a ls o Ba nk s v. Sta te , 70 8 S .W .2d46 0, 4 62 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ) (cu m ul at edsen te nc es ). Mo reo ve r, jud gm en ts ha ve be enrefo rm edto in cl ud e a jury’ s af firm at iv e fi nd in g o f th e u se of ade ad ly w eap on . Herri ng v. Stat e , 75 2 S.W .2d16 9, 1 75 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 stDis t.] 19 88 ), re man de d o n o th er gr ou nd s , 75 8 S .W .2d28 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). Add it io na ll y , “ th e fai lu re o f th e tr ia l co urt t o m ak e th e n eces sa ry en try as t o a n a ffi rm at iv e fi nd in g i s n otan erro r of jud ic ia l re as on in g ‘bu t ra th er an erro r of a cl eri cal na tu re.’” Asb erry , 81 3 S.W .2dat 5 30 . As su chth e ap pe ll at e co urt, i n t hi s ca se , was wel l wi th in it s au th or ity to m od ify the lo wer co urt’s jud gm en t u nd er the rul es of Tex as App el late State’s B rief Pag e 7Pro cedur e 4 3.2 (b ), an d d idno t err as th e Pet it io ne r as se rts .

Furth er, the Sta te wou ldsh ow tha t, the m od ifi cat io n o f th e jud gm en t h erei n by the Co urt o f App eal s was ne ces sa ry to refl ectth e jury’ s fi nd in g o f a d ead ly weap on . Bas edonth e la ng ua ge inth e in di ctm en t, Pe ti ti on er h adno ti ce tha t the St at e wou ldsee k a n a ffi rm at iv e fi nd in g o f a Dead ly W eap on . This Co urt s ta te d i n Blo un t v. Sta te : Agg rav at edass au ltm ay

be co m m it te d i n o nl y

two way s: (1) by “ cau s [in g] ser io us bo di ly injury ” o r (2 ) by “us [in g] or e xh ib it [in g] a de ad ly weap on du rin g the co m

m is si on of t he ass au lt .” Tex. Pe na l Co de § 22 .02 (a). Eachof t he se in vo lv es th e u se of ade ad ly w eap on . The fir stway ne ces sa ril y

im pl ie s the us e o f a d ead ly w eap on , whi chis “ an yth in g tha t i n the m an ne r of it s u se or i nt en de d u se is cap ab le of cau si ng de ath o r se rio us bo di ly injury .” Id ., § 1 .07 (a)( 17 )(B) . The se co ndway

sp eci fie s the us e o f a d ead ly w eap on . There fo re an al le ga ti on th ata de fen da ntco m m itte d a gg rav at edass au ltgi ve s h im no ti ce tha t the de ad ly natur e o f th e weap on all eg edinth e in di ctm en t wou ldbe anis su e attri al an d t ha t the Sta te m ay see k a n a ffi rm at iv e fin di ng on th e u se of t he weap on . Blo un t v. Sta te , 25 7 S .W .3d71 2, 7 14 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 08 ). Co un t II of t he in di ctm en t h erei n c le arl y st at es th atth e und erl y in g fe lo ny all eg ed , was Ag gr av at ed Ass au lt . The ev id en ce p res en te d t o t he jury was of asi ng le cri m in al ep is od e, whe rei n the jury fo un d Def en da ntgu il ty und er Co un t II (ag gr av at edass au ltwith a de ad ly w eap on ), an d C ou ntI (b ur gl ary of a habi ta ti on -wit h t he un de rlyin g fe lo ny be in g the id en ti cal ag gr av at edass au lt ). Ther efo re, the Pet it io ne r ha d n ot ic e o f th e
State’s B rief Pag e 8St at e’s in te ntto see k a n a ffi rm at iv e fi nd in g o f a d ead ly w eap on as t o b ot h c ou nt s.

In Ex pa rt e Gre tt en be rg , 79 0 S .W .2d61 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 90 ), th is Co urt co nf

ro nt edanan al og ou s s itua ti on . In tha t ca se , th e d efen da ntwas c ha rg ed with two cr im es un de r a s in gl e in di ctm en t: th e fi rs t co un t ch arg edGrette nb erg with b ur gl ary of

a habi ta ti on with t he in te ntto co m m itag gr av at edass au lt , andth e se co ndco un t ch arg edhi m with a tt em

pt edcap it al m

ur de r an d a ll eg edus e o f a de ad ly w eap on . Bot h c ou nt s ar os e fro m th e sa m e cri m in al ep is od e; ho wev er, o nl y th e se co ndco un t s pe ci fic al ly alle ge d u se of ade ad ly w eap on . The St at e u lt im at el y ab an do ne d the sec on d c ou nt , andth e d efen da ntwas c on vi ct edof b ur gl ary with in te ntto co m

m itag gr av at edass au lt . In ad di ti on , th e jury fou ndth ata de ad ly weap on ha d b eenus eddu rin g the cri m e. Thi s C ou rt h el d tha t the ori gi na l in di ctm en t g av e th e d efen da ntad equa te no ti ce tha t the Sta te wou ldsee k a n affi rm at iv e fi nd in g o f us e o r ex hi bi ti on of ade ad ly w eap on , eve n tho ug h t ha t p art of th e in di ctm en t h adbe envo lu nt ari ly aban do ne d b y th e St at e. As thi s C ourt st at ed , “ whe n the th eo rie s o f pr os ecu ti on co nt ai ne d i n the co un ts are s o in te rrel at edas u nd er the fact s o f th is cas e, th e el ect io n b y th e St at e to pu rs ue on e of th e co un ts inpre fere nc e to th e o th er wi ll no t v it iate th e n ot ic e g iv eninth e in di ctm en t i n i ts ori gi na l fo rm .” Id . at 6 14 ; se e a ls o Br oo ks v. Stat e , 84 7 S .W .2d 24 7, 2 48 -4 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ). State’s B rief Pag e 9The jury inth e p res en t ca se he ardev id en ce o f th e d ead ly w eap on an d fo un d

Pet it io ne r gu il ty of bu rg lary of ahabi tati on(with t he un de rlyin g fe lo ny bei ng ag gr av at edass au lt ) in co un t I andof a gg rav at edass au ltwith ade ad ly w eap on in co un t II . In b ot h i ns tanc es th atjury fo un d t he Pet it io ne r gu il ty “ as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t.” (C .R. pp . 78 -7 9) . There fo re, und er thi s C ou rt’s d eci si on s i n Blo un t an d Polk, th e la ng ua ge of t he in di ctm en t s pe ci fic al ly pla cedth e is su e b efo re the tri er o f fac t, an d a n a ffi rm at iv e fi nd in g was de fa ct o m ad e whe n t he Pet it io ne r was fo un d g ui lty

“ as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t.” Se e Blo un t , 25 7 S .W .3dat 7 14 (h ol di ng th atanall eg at io n tha t a d efen da ntco m m it te d a gg rav at edass au lt ne ces sa ril y

in cl ud es anall eg at io n o f a d ead ly w eap on , up on whi chth e St at e m ay se ekanaffi rm at iv e fi nd in g o n the us e o f th e weap on ); se e a ls o Po lk v. Stat e , 69 3 S.W .2d39 1, 3 94 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ) ( ci ti ng Rub en v. Stat e , 64 5 S .W .2d79 4 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 83 )) (h ol di ng th atwhen anall eg at io n s pe ci fic al ly pla ces th e de ad ly w eap on is su e b efo re the tri er o f fact , th enanaffi rm at iv e fi nd in g i s de fa ct o m ad e whe n the de fen da ntis fou ndgu il ty “ as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t” ). Furth er, b ecau se th e d ead ly w eap on all eg at io n was co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t, the m at te r was lef t fo r th e jury to d eci de . Whe re an in di ctm en t l eav es th e is su e b efo re the jury, th enanaffi rm at iv e fi nd in g i s au to m at ic al ly m ad e whe n th e jury fin ds th e d efen da ntgu il ty as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. Se e Polk, 69 3 State’s B rief Pag e 10S.W .2dat 3 94 (ho ld in g tha t wh enanaffi rm at iv e fi nd in g i s m ad e b y th e tr ie r of fact , itth enbe co m es th e m an da to ry du ty of th e tr ia l co urt t o e nt er a s ep arat e an d sp eci fic de ad ly w eap onfin di ng inth e jud gm en t). Acco rd in gl y , th e m od ifi cat io n o f th e jud gm en t h erei n b y th e Co urt o f App eal s was bo th pro pe r, un de r th e law andth e fac ts he rei n, an d aut ho riz edun de r th e Ru le s o f App el late Pro cedur e. Su b- is su e 1 (c) Insub- is su e 1 (c), Pe ti ti on er co m pl ai ns th atth e Co urt o f App eal s erredby fai li ng to va cat e th e d oubl e jeop ardy ba rredco nv ic ti on (s ) as reque st edan d a gr eed be twee n d efen se co un se l an d the Sta te App el la te Co un se l, t o wi t, the ag gr av at ed as saul t wi th a de ad ly w eap on . In re sp on se to is su e 1 (c), the Sta te res po nd s b y no ti ng th atth e Co urt o f App eal s h erei n d idm od ify the jud gm en t h erei n t o re fle ct th atth e St at e d idab an do n C ou ntII, th e ch arg e o f ag gr av at edass au ltwith ade ad ly weap on . Spe ci fic al ly, th e o pi ni on of the Co urt o f App eal s s ta te s: W e co nc lu de th atth e jud gm en t s ho ul d b e m od ifi edto refl ectth atth e St at e ab an do ne d C ou ntII b efo re the pu ni sh m en t p ha se an d t o affi rm at iv el y

st at e th atpu ni sh m en t was ass es se d o nl y onCo un t I. * * * * * W e m od ify the jud gm en t...t o re fle ctth atth e St at e ab an do ne d C ou ntII be fo re the pu ni sh m en t p ha se an d t o re fle ctth atpu ni sh m en t was as se ss edon ly on C ou ntI... . W e affi rm th e jud gm en t as m od ifi ed . State’s B rief Pag e 11Dur an , 20 13 WL 33 78 32 7 a t * 4, * 10 . Accor di ng ly, th e p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t

m ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts fora si ng le off en se ha s n otbe envi ol at ed . Fo r fu rth er re sp on se , if an y ne edth ere b e, th e St at e n ot es th atinit s b rie f to th e Co urt o f App eal s, the Sta te di d s ug ge stth atva cat in g t he sec on d c ountfro m th e jud gm en t wo ul d b e ap pr op ria te . There fo re, s ho ul d thi s C ou rt d eem itne ces sa ry , 1 th e St at e d oe s n otop po se a furth er co rrec ti on of t he tri al co urt’s jud gm en t, t o va cat e th e co nv ic ti onas t o c ou ntII h erei n. Su b- is su e 1 (d

) Insub- is su e 1 (d ), Pet it io ne r co m pl ai ns th atth e Co urt o f App eal s erredby fai li ng to reco gn iz e th e p la in erro r of pe ti ti on er b ei ng de pr iv edof afai r tr ia l i n vi ol at io n o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s d oubl e jeop ardy claus e. Inres po ns e to subis su e 1 (d ), th e St at e res po nd s b y no ti ng th ata de fen da ntis no t d ep riv eda fai r tr ia l m erel y by bei ng pro se cu te d fo r two off en se s tha t ar e th e sa m e fo r do ub le jeop ardy The State fur

ther noted in its brief on dir ect a ppeal that, while the trial court’ s judgme nt 1 should not reflec t the Petitioner’s conviction for ag gravated assault, the jury ’s findingthat Petitioner used or e x hibited a dea dly wea pon is neverthe less proper (State’s B rief on dir ect appea l, pp. 32-34). The State now re -urg es this positi on, as noted a bove, and a sserts that eve n should this C ourt amend the judgme nt here in by vacating the c onviction for ag gravated assault, the fa cts and a

pplicable law

never theless supports the af

firmanc e of the jury ’s dea dly wea pon finding . See B lount v. State , 257 S.W .3d 712, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that an alleg ation that a def

endant c ommitt ed ag gravated assault nec essarily includes an a lleg ation of a deadly wea pon, upon which the State may seek a n aff irmative findingon the use of the wea pon); see also Polk v . State , 693 S.W .2d 391, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) ( citing Ruben v. State , 645 S.W .2d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)) (holdingthat when a n alleg ation specific ally

place s the deadly wea pon issue befor e the trie r of f act, then a

n aff irmative findingis de facto made whe n the def endant is found guilty

“as c harg ed in the indictment”) . State’s B rief Pag e 12pu rp os es ; ra th er, wh ena de fen da nt ’s Fift h Am en dm en t i s v io la te d h is or h er s ol e

rem edy is to ret ai n the co nv ic ti on with t he m os t s eri ou s p un is hm en t an d v acat e an y rem ai ni ng co nv ic ti on s tha t ar e th e sa m e fo r do ub le jeop ardy pu rp os es . Bal l v. Uni te d Sta tes , 47 0 U.S. 8 56 , 86 4 (1 98 5) ; La nder s v. Sta te , 95 7 S .W .2d55 8, 5 59 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 97 ). A su cces sf ul do ub le jeop ardy

ch al le ng e wil l n otrequi re a retria l o r rem an d t o the tri al co urt. Ell is on v. Stat e , 42 5 S .W .3d63 7, 6 43 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 20 14 , no pe t.) ( ci ti ng Roy v . Stat e , 76 S.W .3d87 , 94 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4th Di st .] 20 02 , no pe t.). Acco rd in gl y , th e so le rem edy whi chPet it io ne r is en ti tl edto , is to ha ve hi s co nv ic ti on for Co un t II va cat ed . PRAYER WH EREFORE , PREMISE S CONSI DERED , th e St at e o f Tex as pra y s th atth is Co urt wi ll ov erru le Pet it io ne r’s gr ou ndforrev ie w, andaffi rm bo th th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onan d the sen te nc e h erei n.

State’s B rief Pag e 13Res pe ct fu ll y Subm it te d, LUI S V. SAENZ Camero n Cou ntyDis tri ct Atto rney 96 4 Eas t Harris on Str eet , 4th F lo or Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0 Ph on e: (95 6) 54 4- 08 49 Fax : (9 56 ) 54 4- 08 69 By : /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z René B. G on zá le z Ass is tantDis tri ctAtt orne y St at e BarNo. 0 81 31 38 0 rg on zal ez1 @c o.c am ero n.t x.u s Con su el ito Mar tín ez Ass oc ia te Att orne y Tem po rary Stat e BarNo. 2 40 95 83 5 co ns ue li to .m art in ez@ co .cam ero n.t x.u s Atto rney s fo r the Sta te o f Tex as

State’s B rief Pag e 14CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I certi fy th atth is do cu m en t co nt ai ns 3,0 51 word s (e xc lu di ng th e co ve r, tabl e of co nt en ts an d t ab le of aut ho rit ie s) . The b ody tex t i s i n 1 4 p oi ntfon t, an d t he fo ot no te tex t i s i n 1 2 p oi ntfon t.
/s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE I certi fy th ata co py of th e fo reg oi ng Sta te ’s app el la te Bri ef was serve d upo n Mr. J os ep h M or en o, At to rn ey at Law, 2 34 09 El Pas o Dri ve , Harli ng en , Texa s 78 55 2, j_m or en o_ 02 @yaho o.c omon th e 1 5t h d ay of Oc to be r, 20 15 . /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le

z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 15