i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 45 6- CR Muku l AH M ED , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 341st J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CRM-640-D3 Honora ble Elma Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 1, 2008 APPEALAB ATED; REMANDED On a pp e a l, M uk

ul Ah me d c ha lle ng e s th e le g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to
s u p p o rt h is c o n v ic ti o nf

o r a tt e mp te d

mu r d e r , an d th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s assessment of r e s ti tuti o n . We
overr ule Ahmed’s sufficie ncy challeng e, but beca use we hold the restitution order is not supported by a fa c tua l ba sis , w e se t a sid e the amou nt o f r e sti tut ion , a

bate thi s a

pp e a l, and

re mand the c a us e to t h e t r i a l c o u rtf

o r a h e ar i n g t o d e t e r

m i n e a j u s ta m o u n to f

r e s t i tu t i o n , i f

an y.04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

1 ... W e no t e t hat t he t ri al co urt ’ s judgm ent erroneo usl y s t at es t hat A hm ed pled gui l t y t o at t em p t ed m urder, and ins tru c t t h e trial c o u rt to c o rr e c t t h is c le ric a l er ro r b y the e n try o f a j u d g m e n t n u n c p ro tu n c .

- 2- F ACT S AND P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY On an ear l y

Sunday evening , Gustavo Carde nas, the c omplainant, stopped at B eng al’s Gr oc e ry to b uy a six- pa c k o f b e e r a ft e r fi sh ing a ll a ft e rn oo n w ithfa mil y me mbe rs . Adis pute aro se over pa y ment for the beer , and Mukul Ahmed, the store owner , followed Car denas out of the store and onto the fr ont sidewalk whe re A hmed shot Car denas f our times. Cardena s was hospitalized for eig ht w eeks. Ahmed was char g ed with the second deg ree felony offe nse of attempted murde r. At tr ia l, A hme d a sse rt e d th a t he wa s p ro te c tin g him se lf and his pr op e rt

y . A j ur y fo un d A hme d guil ty of attempted murde r as c harg ed, and r ecommende d imposit ion of a ten-y ear sentenc e, probated, and
as s e s s me n t o f

a $ 5 , 0 0 0 f in e . T h e tr ia l c o u rt f

o ll o w e d th e ju r y ’ s r e c o mm e n d a ti o nan d

s e n te nced Ah me d to ten y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt, su sp e nd ingthe se nte nc e and pla c inghim

on c omm un ity supervision for a

period of te n y ear s and asse ssing a $5,000 fine. 1 I n ad d i t ion, the court a ssessed $1 98 ,2 00 .9 2 in

re sti tut ion

pa y a ble to L are do Me dic a l Ce nte r. Ah me d f ile d a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, which wa s overr

uled by operation of law. Ahmed timely appea led. A T T E M P T E D M URDE R – S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n his fir st two iss ue s, Ah me d co nte nd s the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o
su pp or t hi s c on vic tio n f

or a tte mpt e d mu

rder. S pec if

ic a lly , A hme d a sse rt s th e e vid e nc e fa ile d to pr ov e be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t he ha d th e sp e c if ic int e nt t o k ill a t th e tim e he sh ot C ard e na s. I n revie wing leg al suffic iency , we c onsider all the e vidence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict to d e te rm ine wh e the r a

ny ra tio na l trie r of fa c t cou ld have fo un d the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the of fe ns e04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 3- beyond a rea sonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; Vo do c ho ds k yv . S tate , 158 S.W .3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The jury is permitted to make re asonable infere nces from the e vidence , and, as the trier of fac t, the jury is the sole judge of the c redibility of the witnesse s and the weig ht to be g iven their testimony
. Mo sle yv . S tate , 983 S.W. 2d 24 9, 25 4- 55 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1998). We re solve any inconsistencies in the testimony in f avor of the verdic t. Cur

ry v . S tate , 30 S.W .3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). I n revie wing fac tual sufficie ncy , we c onsider all the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht, givingalmost complete def ere nce to the jur

y ’s deter minations of
cre dibilit y . Lan c on v . S

tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We will reverse the conviction only

if the evide nce in suppor

t of the verdic t, a lthough leg ally sufficie nt, is so weak that the ver dict is clear ly

wrong and manifestly unjust, or if, consideringconflictingevidenc e, the ve rdict is outweig hed by

the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of t h e evidence. Id. ; W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). To ob ta in a

c on vic tio n f

or a tte mpt e d mu

rd e r, the State mus t pr ov e that the de fe nd ant, wi th the s p ec i fi c intent to commit m urder , did an ac t amounting to more than mere prepa ration that tended, but fa iled, to effect t h e co mmissi on of the intende d murder. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1 5. 01 (a ) ( Ve rn on

20 03 ); Flan ag

an v . S tate , 675 S.W .2d 734, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (opin. on reh’ g ) (holding specific int ent t o kill is a nec essar y element of

attempted murde r). A pe rson
c omm its the of

fe ns e of mur de r i f h e int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

c a us e s th e deat h of

an in div idu a l, or intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an ac t clear ly dang erous to human life that
cause s an individual’s death. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(b)( 1), (2) (Ve rnon 2003). In this case, the ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t A hme d, wi th the sp e c if ic int e nt t o mu

rd e r C ard e na s, did

an a c t, t o w it:04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 4- discharg ing a

firea rm at Carde nas, which amounted to more than me re pr epar ation and that tende d but f a ile d to e ff

e c t the mur de r. A pe rs on

a c ts w ith“ int e nt” wi th r e sp e c t to the natur e or re su lt o f h is
c on duct whe n it

is h is c on sc iou s o bje c tiv e or de sir e to e ng a g e in t

he c on du c t or

c a us e the re su lt. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 6.03(a) (Ve rnon 2003). It is well establis h ed t h at t he trier of fa ct may infer intent from the acts, words, and conduc t of the def endant. Be ltran v . S

tate , 593 S.W .2d 688, 68 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Ra mi re z v . S tate , 229 S.W .3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007,
no pet.). Mo r e o v e r , th e s p e c if ic in te n t t o k il l m a

y b e in f e r r e d f r o m t h e u s e o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n, unless in the manner

of its use it is reasonably

appar ent that death or serious bodily injury could not result. Ad

an an du s v . S

tate , 8 66 S .W .2 d 210 , 2 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Go ds e yv . S tate , 719 S.W .2d 578, 580-81 (Te x . Crim
. Ap p . 1986). “Ser ious bodily injury ” mea

ns bodily injury that
cre ate s a s u b s ta n ti a l r is k o f d e a th , o r

th a t c a u s e s d e a th , s e r io u s p e r

ma n e n t d is f igu r e me n t, or p rotrac ted loss or impairment of the f unction of any

bodily member or

org an. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (46) ( Ver

non Supp. 2008). Her e, the tria l evidence was undisputed that Ahmed know ingly shot Cardena s four times on the sidewa lk outside his st ore; thus, the only disputed issue was Ahmed’ s intent when he fire d the shots. First, we will brief ly summarize the evidenc e conc erningthe fa cts and c ircumstance s of the shooting, a

nd then ex am i n e t he evide nce f rom which Ahme d’s intent could be infe rre d. The evidenc e esta

blished that when Car denas c ame to the store counter to pay for a six -pac k of beer , he place d the money

on t h e co u n t er and Ahmed inf ormed him that he wa s short by some cha

ng e. Cardena s testified he lef

t the money

on the counter , told Ahmed he would g et the cha ng e fr om the ashtray in his car which was parked in front of the s tore, picked up the bee r, and star ted to leave the04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 5- sto re . A hme d, on

the oth e r h and , te sti fi e d th a t, a ft e r h e tol d him he wa s shor t, Card e na s thre w s ome ch ang e on the c ounter, in re sponse to which Ahmed g ave him his money back, told Carde nas he would not se ll him the beer , and instructed him to leave the store; Ahmed stated that C ar d enas picked up the be er a

nd started to lea

ve the store
. The e vidence was undisputed that Ahmed t h en jum ped over the counter , and blocke d Cardena s from exiti ng throug h the front door ; they wer e ar g uing, pushi n g an d g rabbing , befor e Ah me d to ok awa

y the six- pa c k and

se t it do wn ins ide the sto re . A hme d te sti fi e d th a t Ca rd e na s h it him during this exchang e and the n went out the front door; he followed Cardena s outside to make sure he did not damag e his pr operty ; Ca rdena s attacke d him outside, hitting A hmed in the ey e, say ing “you want to kill me . . . I [’ll] kill y ou;” Ahmed then grabbe d h i s g un from his bac k pocket a nd “starte d firingto go a

way from him.” Carde nas, howe ver, te stified th at h e h ad walked out of the store and r eac hed the pa sseng er side of his car when Ahmed struck first, hitting him from behind on the he a d w ithso me thi ngha rd ; the n, Card e na s tur

ne d and punc he d A hme d in the fa c e wi th h is f

ist
. Cardena s testified that he “ was g oing to g o afte r him [Ahmed] ag ain but saw he had a gun.” Cardena s stated that when he saw the gun, he asked Ahmed whether he was g oing to shoot him, at wh ic h p oin t A hme d s ho t him onc e . Card e na s sai d he fe ll t o th e g ro un d, and Ah me d th e n s ho t hi m three more times while he w as on the ground. Ahmed testi fied he shot Cardena s to protect himself; he wa s not aiming at any

particula r body part when he fired at Cardena s four times; he did not intend to kill C arde nas; and he knew Cardena s was a g angmember a nd had a ba d reputation in the community
. Ahmed went inside the s tore a nd called 911 immediate ly afte r the shooting . Cardena s testified, and se vera l photog raphs admitted into e vidence showed, that he wa s shot twice in the hea d,04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 6- o n ce o nt h e l ef

ts i d e o f h i s ch es t , an d o n ce i n t h e kn ee . He s t at edh e h as t ro u b l e r em em b er i n g t h i n gs now. A videotape was introduce d, but it only shows the argument inside the store a nd not the shooting in fr ont of the store, a lthough the f our shots can be hea rd o n t h e t ap e. There was no evidenc e that Carde nas wa s armed w ith any ty pe of w eapon. I n addition, an ey ewitness who lived acr oss the s tree t testified t hat s he saw Ahmed follow Cardena s out of the store a nd shoot him once, ca

using him to fall to the g round. She stated that a fter the first shot, Ahmed “tur ned both way s” on the stre et, and t h en shot Cardena s three mor e times while he wa s on the g round bef ore w alking b ac k i n t o t he store. She a lso testified, howeve r, that Cardena s’s ca

r w as n o t p ar k ed in front of the store at the time of the shooting. Ca rdena s’s uncle, J esus Pera les, who testified he was wa iting in the ca r par ked out front, state d that he sawAhmed and Cardena s ar g u in g o nth e s id e w a lk , e xit e d th e v e h ic le , an d

s te p p e d b e tw e e nth e m; h e s tate d th at Ah me d th e n f

ir e d at Ca rd e na s o ve r P e ra le s’ s sh ou lde r, str iki ng Card e na s and c a us inghim to f a ll t o the g ro un d b e fo re fi ri ngmor e sh ots
. Turn i n g to the element of Ahmed’s intent, we conclude that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually sufficie nt to support a finding that Ahmed used a deadly wea pon, a handgun, in a

manner that w a s c apab le of c a

us ingse ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y to C ard e na s, and

thu s su pp or ts a re a so na ble infere nce of

Ahmed’s inten t t o kill. See A danandus , 8 66 S.W. 2d a t 21 5; see also Godse

y , 719 S.W .2d at 581 (“ [i ]f a deadly wea pon is used in a dea dly manner , the infer ence is almost conclusive that [t he def

endant] intended to kill . . .”). Ahmed did not mere ly exhibi t t h e l o ad ed g un, but intentionally pointed and fired it at Ca rdena s – not onc e, but f

our times. Ahmed testified that his gun require s the trig g er to be pulled eac h time in order to fire a bullet. An i nvestig ator testified that the04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

2 ... A h m e d a lso a sse rts t h e re stitutio n o rd e r is e rr o n e o u s b e c a u se L a re d o M e d ic a l C e n te r is n o t t h e d ire c t vic tim o f t h e o ff

e n se . If the re is sufficie n t ev id e n c e in the re c o rd , the c o u rt m a y o rd e r t h a t re stitutio n b e m a d e to a third p a rty who has com pens at ed t he vi ct i m f or h i s l oss es , i
. e. , m e d ic a l ex p e n se s, su sta ine d a s a d ire c t re su lt o f t h e o ff e n se . See T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t. 4 2 .0 3 7 (f)( 1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); se e a lso N a rv a e z v . S ta te , 40 S.W
. 3 d 72 9 , 73 0 (T ex. A pp . — San Ant oni o 20 01 , pet
. di s m’ d) ( hol di ng t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n or deri ng appel l ant t o pay re stitutio n to ho sp ital fo r v ic tim ’s m e d ic a l b ill s)
.

- 7- bu l l e t s w e r e h y dr o s h o c k b u l l e t s w h i c h “ t e ar e v e r y t h i n g u p ” i n t h e b o dy ; A h m e d s t a t e d h e sim ply asked f or the “ best” bull ets when he purcha sed t he gun. Although A hmed testified that he did not specific ally

aim at Carde nas’s “ head, he art or e y es,” he did not intend to kil l him, an d ca l l ed 911 immediately

afte r the shooting ; he also admitted that he pointed and fire d the gun at Carde nas four times at close ra

ng e, including three s h o t s af ter he had fa llen to the g round. In addition, Perales stated that Ahmed ha d to fire over hi s shoulder in order to hit Cardenas w ith the first shot, and the neig hbor obser

ved Ahmed tur

n both way s befor e firingthe three additional shots at Cardena s on the g round. Carde nas wa s wounded twice in the head, and once in the left che st area – the sites of major life-sustaining org ans; he testi fied he spent eig ht weeks in the hospital and still suffer s from memory loss. Ha ving revie wed all the evidenc e, we hold there w as leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence fr om whic h th e jur

y c ou ld h ave re a so na

bly inf e rr e d A hm e d’ s in te nt t o k ill Card e na s b a se d o n h is actions. Adanandus , 8 66 S.W. 2d a t 21 5; Godsey , 719 S.W. 2d a t 58 0- 81 . A c c or din g ly , w e ov e rr ule Ahmed’s issues c halleng ing the sufficie ncy of the e vidence
. RE S T I T UT I ON As to the restitution, pay

ment of which is a condition of his community supervision, Ahmed
asser ts the trial court e rre d in orderinghim to pay $198,200.92 in restitution to L are d o Medica l Ce nte r, in p art because the re is n o e vid e nc e in t he re c or d to su

pp or t th e amou

nt. 2 We ag ree . The trial court ha s authority

to order a d ef

en d an t to make re stitut ion to a victim of the offe nse of04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 8- conviction as a

condition of probation, but the amount of r estitution m ust be just and it must have a factual basis with reg ard to the loss sustained by the victim. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt s. 42 .0 37 (a ), 42 .1 2 § 11 (a ), (b ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); Cam

pb e ll v . S tate , 5 S.W. 3d 69 3, 69 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Car twr igh t v . S tate , 605 S.W .2d 287, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (due pr ocess r equire s that evidenc e must exi st in the record t o s h o w t h e restitution amount has a fa ctual basis). Atrial court a buses its discretion when it fails t o abide by these guidelines. Le mo s v . S tate , 27 S.W .3d 42, 45 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 200 0 , pet. re f’d) . Her e, the a ppellate r ecor d is silent as to how the amount of re stitut ion was ca lculated, a nd does not provide a

ny fac tual basis to suppor t the amount order ed or to c onnect it to a fina ncial loss sustained by Cardena s. There is no evidenc e in t he re cord as to the dollar amount of medical ex penses incurred by Cardena s and no st ipulation by Ahmed. To the contra ry , at s en t en cing, Ahmed objec ted to the impositi on of any amount of re stitut ion. The State argue s on a

pp e a l that the re sti tut ion or de r i s su pp or te d b y the pr e -s e nte nc e inv e sti g a tio n r e po rt , and ha s atta c he d a

c op y of the re po rt to its br ie f. Th e pr e -s e nte nc e inv e sti g a tio n r e po rt do e s a dd re ss the re s t i t u tion issue. However , it was not admitted into evidence and thus is not contained in the appellate rec ord; there fore , we may not consider it. Se e Bo oth v . S tate , 4 9 9 S. W. 2 d

1 2 9 , 1 3 6 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1973) (appe llate cour t is not authorized to c onsider documents attache d to a ppellate br ief wh ic h a re no t pa rt of the re c or d) ; se e als o M

ira nd a v . S tate , 813 S.W .2d 724, 738 (Tex. App—San Antonio 1991, pet. ref

’d). B eca use there is no evidence in the rec ord to support the restitution order, we hold the tria l court abuse d its discretion. As to the proper remedy , our C ourt of C riminal Appea ls has st ated that, “wher e re stitut ion is a lawful condition of community supervision, but the specific amount imposed by the trial cour

t is unsupported by

the re cord, . . . the proper reme dy is to abate the appe al, set aside the amount of04
- 07
- 00 45 6- CR

- 9- restitut i o n , and remand the c ause f or a he aringto determine a just amount of restitution.” Barton

v . S tate , 2 1 S
. W
. 3 d

2 8 7 , 2 8 9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Cartw right , 605 S.W .2d at 289).

C ONCL US I ON Ba sed on the for eg oing analy sis, we over rule Ahme d’s cha lleng es to the suffic iency of the evidenc e to suppor

t his conviction, and set aside the amount of restitution, a bate th e a p p ea l , and
r e m an d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rtf

o r a h e ar i n g t o d e t e r

m i n e a j u s ta m o u n t o f

r e s t i tu t i o n , i f

an y. Barton , 21 S.W .3d at 290. Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH