### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 564 -CR

Da nie l F e r nande z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -20 4068 , HO NORAB LE JO N N. WISSER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant Daniel Fe rnande z of ag g ravated assault. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2007). He was sentenc ed to twelve y ear s in prison and assesse d a $1,000 fine. I n two points of error, Fer nandez contends that the t rial court err ed by failing to instruct the jury on all counts set out in the indictment and by admitting ce rtain exhibit s into evidence
. F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
Backg ro und On

Au g us t 7, 20 05 , M art

ha Do min g ue z wa s a t a nig ht c lub wi th a ma le fr ie nd . Wh ile they wer e danc ing, one of F erna ndez’s friends a

pproac hed Domingue z’s f riend, and a fig ht ensued. Both men were arr ested. Fe rnande z and a g roup of Fe rnande z’s rema ining friends left the nig ht club in one vehicle at the same time that Domingue z and her fr iends left the club in a nother ve hicle. The vehicle in whic h Fe rna n d ez was riding alter nately followed a

nd passed the ve hicle in which2

Domingue z was riding. F erna ndez’s vehicle e ventually

pulled up beside Doming uez’s vehicle, a nd sh ots we re fi re d. On e of

the bu lle ts e nte re d D omi nguez’ s v e hic le thr ou g h th e wi nd sh ie ld a nd hit Domingue z in t he fa ce. A fter unde rg oing sur g ery , Domingue z lost one ey e and was left with limited vision in t he other
.

Police interviewe d witnesses and w er e able to g et a lice nse plate numbe r for Fe rnande z’s vehicle. W i t h this information, they found and stopped the vehicle. When police questioned the owne r of the vehicle, Martin Arc e, he identified F erna ndez as having been involved in the inc ide nt. Pol ic e the n in te rv ie we d F e rn and e z. A lth ou g h F e rn and e z’s sto ry wa s in c on sis te nt, he ultimately

admitted to holding the gun and to firingthe g un at Doming uez’s vehicle. I n th e ind ic tme nt, F e rn and e z wa s c ha rg e d w itha g gravat e d a ssa ult and wi th d e a dly
c on du c t. A c c or din g to t

he ind ic tme nt:
Da nie l A le xan de r F e rn and e z . . . d id t he n a nd the re intent iona lly , k

no wi ng ly or re cklessly

cause bodily

injury to Martha Doming uez b y d i schar g ing a firea rm and the sa id Daniel F erna ndez did then and there use or ex h i bit a deadly wea pon, to- wi t: a fi re arm , d

ur ingthe c omm iss ion

of sa id a ssa ult ,

. . . Danie l F e rn and e z did

the n a nd the re int e nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly or re c kle ssl y

c a us e serious bodily

injury to Martha Domingue z by discharg ing a

firea rm in the direc tion of a motor ve hicle occ upied by Martha D omingue z, and the said Danie l Fer nandez did then and ther e use or exhibi t a dea dly

wea pon, to-wit : a fi re ar m , during the c omm iss ion

of sa id a ssa ult , . . . Daniel F erna

ndez did then and there recklessly eng ag e in conduc t that placed M ar t h a D o m i n gu ez i ni m m i n en td an ger o f s er i o u s b o d i l y

i n j u ry b y d i s ch ar gi n g a f ir e ar m i nth e d ir e c ti o no f

th e v e h ic le o c c u

p ie d b y M arth a D o mi n g u e z.Fe rnande z does not appeal the c ourt’s re fusal to submit de adly conduct a s a lesser included 1 off e ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult . F e rn and e z co mpl a ins on ly of the c ourt ’s fa ilure to s ub mit de a dly c on du c t a s a

se pa rate c ount, a s se t out in

the ind ic tme nt. 3 At trial, the district court submitted ag g rava ted assault to the jury . Fe rnande z requested, but the court de nied, submission of deadly conduct a s a lesser

included off

ense. The jury

convicted F e rn and e z of

a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult
. Discussion I n his first p o i nt of err or, F erna ndez arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing him a se pa rate c ha rg e on de a dly c on du c t. Ac c or din g to F e rn and e z, th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to

1
s u b m i t d eadly conduct as a separ ate count preve nted the jury from considering a conviction for a le sse r o ff e ns e . F e rn and e z ar gue s th a t th e fa ilure to s ub mit a de a dly c on du ct cha

rg e c a us e d h im “some ha rm,” a nd the ca se should be reverse d and re manded f or a ne w trial. The State r esponds that F e rn and e z ha s n ot p res erved e rr or on thi s p oin t be c a

us e he ob je c te d to the tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to submit deadly

conduct a s a lesser

included off

ense to a g g ravated assault, not t o t h e o m ission of deadly conduct a s a sec ond separ ate c ount. I n the alter native, the State a

rg ues that the trial c ourt proper ly ref used to submit the deadly conduct count beca

use t he S tate’s f

ailure to submit the count
a mou nte d to an e le c tio n b y

the State of

on e c ount i n a

tw o- c ount i nd ic tme nt. Fe rnande z emphasiz es that his argument is not that he reque sted and wa s denied a char g e on the lesse r included of fense of dea dly

conduct. Rather, his ar g ument is that he reque sted and wa s denied a

char g e on the of

fe n s e o f d ea d l y conduct, a separ ate c ount, as cha

rg ed in the indictment. Accor ding to Fe rn an d ez , the fa ct that dea dly conduct “

just happens to be a le sser4

i n cl u d edo ff

en s e o f a ggra v at ed as s au l t ” h as n o ef fe ct o nh i s ar gu m en t
. Ob

j ec t i n g t o t h e j u ry

ch ar ge that omit t ed deadly

conduct, F erna

ndez submit ted his own proposed c harg e, which inc luded qu es t i o n s o nb o t h aggr av at ed as s au l t an d d ea d l y co n d u ct
. Ho we v er , Fe rn an d ez ’s p ro p o s edch ar ge
wo uld have a llo we d th e jur

y to a ns we r t he qu e sti on on de a dly

c on du c t on ly

if it f ound him no t g uil ty of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult
. Conviction of a lesser

included off

ense is an a lternative to conviction of the charg ed offe nse, and a

defe ndant ca

n only be sepa rate ly convicted of

a lesser included off

ense if h e is not convicted of the cha

rg ed off ense. Se e Ha ll v . S

tat e , 225 S.W .3d 524, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (e xpla ini ngthat, t o b e en tit le d to a c ha rg e on a le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e , th e e vid e nc e mus t
e sta bli shthe le sse r i nc lud e d o ff e ns e a s “ a

va lid , r a tio na l alternative to the char g ed off ense” ) (empha sis added). Thus, w hen a le sser include d offe nse i s proper ly submitt ed, the jury

is instructed that it should onl y

proce ed to consider

the lesser offe nse if it f

irst f inds the defe ndant not g uilty of the g reater off

ense. Whether

couche d in terms of an alternative count or in terms of a lesser inc luded offe nse, the e ff

ec t is the same: if a de fenda nt is convicted of the g reater off ense, the conviction
nece ssarily

includes the lesse r included of fen s e; i f t h e defenda

nt is not convicted of the g reater offe nse, the jury

can c onsider whe ther, in the a lternative, to c onvict the def endant o f t he lesser i n cl u d ed offe nse. Se e Ro us se au v . S tat e , 855 S.W .2d 666, 672-73 (Te x . Crim. App. 1993) (explaining that the le sser off ense must be include d within the proof nec essar y t o establish the of fe ns e c ha rg e d) ; Ste ph e ns v . S

tat e , 806 S.W. 2d 81 2, 81 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ) ( “ As is i nv ari a bly true of gr eate r and lesser included offe nses, the lesser offe nse . . . re quires no proof bey ond that of the g reater.” ). In other wor ds, a def endant is not convicte d separ ately on two counts whe n one of5

those counts is a les s er i ncluded of fense of the other
. Se e Ha ll , 2 25 S.W. 3d a t 53 6; Rousseau , 85 5 S.W. 2d a t 67 2- 73
. Th e tw o c ounts are no t c on sid e re d s e pa ra te ly . T he le sse r i nc lud e d o ff e ns e is only considere d if the def

endant is not convicte d of the g reater off ense. See id. Her e, had the jury

been instruc ted on dea dly conduct a s a lesser

included off

ense of ag g ravated assault, the languag e of the instruction would have been identical to the instruction set out by Fe rnande z in his pr oposed char g e, which F erna ndez claims is a proposal to instruct the jury
on de a dly c on du c t a s an a lte rn a tiv e c ount. F ur th er, the a lle g e d h arm

pr e se nte d b y

F e rn and e z as a result of the c ourt’s re fusal to submit deadly conduct a s an alt ernative count is identical to the potential h ar m caused by the cour t’s err oneous re fusal to submit a lesser include d offe nse. As F e rn and e z expl a ins :
Gi ve n App e lla

nt’ s y ou th, his la c k of in ten t to a c tua lly hurt or kil l so me on e , h is state me nt that he fi re d the g un a t the imm e diate ins ist e nc e of on e of the a c c omp lic e s, and that his uncha

rg ed ac complices we re the driver of the L incoln and the owne r of the g un, the jury

might have elec ted to fi n d Appellant g uilty of the lesse r included offe nse o f

d e a d ly c o n d u c t, h a d th e y h a d th e o p p o rtu

n it y , an d o p p o rtu n it y to w hich Appellant wa s entitled.
I n his ex planation, Fe rnande z not onl y invokes the ar g ument relating to har m cause d by failing to submit a lesser included off

ense but e x pressly

ref ers to t h e j u ry ’s consi deration of “the lesse r included of

fense of dea dly

conduct” rathe r than to dea dly conduc t as a s ep arate or alternative offe nse.

The trial c ourt overr

uled Ferna

ndez’s reque st for submission of the lesser included
o ff en s e o f d ea d l y

co n d u ct
. Fe rn an d ez ex p re s s l y

s t at es t h at h e d o es n o t ap p ea l t h i s ru l i n g. Al t h o u gh he no w a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y fa ili ngto s ub mit

de a dly c on du c t to t

he jur y a s a se pa rateThe e x hibits at iss ue ar e var ious photogra ph s o f a b o x of ammunition. The box of 2 a mmunit ion

in t he ph oto g ra

ph s h a s th e wo rd

“ Ki lle r” wr itt e n o n it
. 6 count, he is—in eff

ec t

— making the ar g ument for inclusion of the le sser include d offe nse under a differ ent label. As we have explained, submitting a lesser inc luded offe nse as a n alternative count is i de nti c a l i n e f

f e c t t o s u b m i t t i n g t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e a s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e , a s a d e f

e n d an tis
on ly c o n v ic te d

o f a le s s e r in c lu d e d o f f e n s e a s ana lt e r

n a ti v e to c o n v ic ti o no f

th e g r e a te r

c h arg ed of fe ns e . Co ns e qu e ntl y , w e ho ld that wh e n, a s h e re , a n a lte rn a tiv e c ount i s a

le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e of a su bmi tte d o ff

e ns e , it is p ro pe rl y su

bmi tte d only a s a les se r inc lud e d off e ns e , not as a

se pa rate of fe ns e . B e c a

us e de a dly

c on du c t is a le sse r inc lud e d off e ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , it wa s p ro pe rl y submitt ed only

as a le sser include d offe nse, not as an a lte rn at i v e o ff ense. Even if F erna

ndez had
a pp e a le d th e tr ia l c ourt ’s re fu sa l to su bmi t de a dly c on du c t a s a le sse r inc lud e d of fe ns e , we a g re e wi th the trial court’s assessment that in c ases wher e, as here , “the uncontrove rted evidenc e is that a pe rson
su ff e re d s e ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y , . . . no re a so na

ble jur y c ou ld fi nd a defe nd ant guil ty of de a dly conduct.” We overrule Fe rnande z’s first point of error
.

I n his second point of error, Fer nandez ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in admitting
e xhibi ts wi th t

he wo rd “ Ki lle r” on

the m. Acc ording to Fe rnande z, admission of these e x hibits was

2 more pre judicial than probative, as the exhibi ts w ere never tied direc tly to Fer nandez, and r esulted in u nf a ir pr e jud ic e to F e rn and e z. Th e State re sp on ds that F e rn and e z fa ile d to pr e se rv e e rr or on thi s po int be c a us e : ( 1) F e rn and e z’s ob

je c tio n at tr ia l do e s n ot c oin c ide wi th h is a rgume nt o n a

pp e a l, (2) the sa

me fa cts wer e shown by other e v idence to which Fe rnande z did not object, and7

(3) F erna ndez rec eived a ll requested relief on his obje ction. I n the alter native, the State a

rg ues that the trial cour

t did not abuse its discretion in admitting these e x hibits i nto evidence
. When the State attempted to admit the exhibit s in question, the bench c onfer ence pr oc e e de d a s f

oll ow s:
DEF ENSE: J udg e, on these photogr aphs there ’s something writ t en o n there
.

Iwas wonde ring if that was on ther e whe n it was retr ieved. STATE: Ye s , i t was. I can a lso prove that up with the other —office r who r e t r i e v e d i ta c tu a l l y. DEF ENSE: Okay . What I ’d like to do is either a sk that the—those photog raphs

with that “Killer” written on there not be—not be admitted until the of f ic e r s p r o v e th a t u

p b e c a u s e it ’ s p r e

ju d ic ia l a n d r e a ll y s e r v e s no purpose. That’s just to link those car tridg es t o the weapon t hat was fired–that was fire d at that vehicle. But I don’t know when that was on the re . We have n’ t ha d a ny te sti mony

a bo ut t hat y e t. COURT: Does the State c are ? STATE: Well, I mean, it just means that—it’s g oing to be a littl e out of order ,

Ig ue ss, bu t—w e ll, we ’l l—w e ’l l bri ng the oth e r d e te c tiv e that di d seize the evidenc e. B ut it was on there. DE F EN SE: Wel l, h e re ’s the thi ng , Y our H on or . We’ re no t—w e ’r e no t g oin g to

object to the other

photos coming i n an d we’ re not c ontesting that—t hat th e c art

ri dg e s th a t w e re re c ov e re d and te ste d are the same car tridg es that ca

me out of the gun that was fired that nig ht that went int o that—t

he bu lle t that we nt int o th e ve hic le . A nd so my —my on ly ob je c tio n is th at Ido n’ t se e wh a t pu rp os e it s e rv e s to e nte r i n th os e tw o p ho tog ra

ph s w hic h h a ve the bo x tha t ha s “ Ki lle r” wr itt e n o n it
. We don’t know who wrote that. And the jury is going to have an adver se re action to that sc raw led on there . That’s my point. W e’r e no t—w e ’r e no t c on te sti ngthe va lid ity of wh a t th e S tate is tr

y ingto g e t out of the se ph oto g ra

ph s w hic h is tha

t th e y c ome fr om t

he same re v o l v er t h at wa s u s edi nt h e s h o o t i n g.8

STATE: So I g uess when Iintroduce the actua l box throug h the detec tive that

fo un d it wh e re the g un

wa s fo un d, c an I

the n— are y ou

ok ay wi th m e showing those photog raphs then? DE F EN SE: Wel l, i f t

hat of fi c e r s ay s th a t th a t’ s th e wa y it w a s whe n h e g ot i t, y eah. COURT: Well, if the St ate is positive that this is the exact way the box was at the time the offic er f

ound it, I think we can overr ule t he objection and admit it after the Court f inds—well, the rele vance outweig hs any unfair pr ejudicial value . I t may be of some r eleva

nce if y our g uy ’s c arr y inga bo x of s tuf

f l ike tha t. DEF ENSE: Well, we don’t know that at this point. That’s my objection. CO UR T: Wel l, n owthat th e State sa y s th e y ’r e g oin g to pr ov e it up and lin k it all up later, just i n the i ntere st of being e x peditious, we’ll over rule the objection. DE F EN SE: Th e n I

wo uld jus t a sk to h a ve a ru nn ingob je c tio n o n th a t. COURT: Okay . We’ll certa inly g ive def ense that. The State’s g oin g to offer to l ink thi s a ll u p thro ug h th e ne xt wit

ne ss? STATE: Yes, we are . COURT: Well, based on that—that assura nce, the C o urt will overrule the defe nse objec tion and admit 25 throug h 30 and note the exception and g ive the de fe ns e the ir

ru nn ingob je c tio n to any

re fe re nc e to t

his
. DEF ENSE: Thank y ou.
Def ense counsel s tated both that he had no objection to the admission of photog raphs of the c artridg es if they

wer e prope rly introduced and that any admission of photogr aphs of the box with “Killer” written on it would be unfa irly prejudicia l to Fer

nandez. Howe ver, the only objection he ac tually

made wa s to the admission of photogr aphs of the box wi thout the acc ompanying testimony from the of

fice r that the wor d “Killer” “wa s on there w hen [the box ] was re trieved.”9

When asked whe ther showingthe photog raphs would be acc eptable if the State “introduc e[d] the actua l box throug h the detec tive t h at found it wher e the gun was found,” defe nse counse l replied: “Well, if that office r say s that that’s t he way it was when he got i t, y eah.” Refer ring to the court’s statement about whe ther “ the State is positive that this is the exact way the box was at the time the of fi c e r f ound it, ” de fe ns e c ouns e l a dd ed: “W ell , we don’ t kn ow that a t th is p oin t. T hat’ s my objection.” Thus, it a

ppear s that defe nse counsel’s only objection to the adm i s s i o n o f t he photogr aphs wa s that the State had not y et established whe ther the w ord “K iller” wa s on the box when th e b o x w a s f

o u n d b y th e p o li c e . D e f

e n s e c o u n s e l f

u rth e r in d ic a te d th a t h e w o u ld h ave no ob je c tio n if the State int

ro du c e d the ph oto g ra

ph s thr ou g h the of

fi c e r w ho a c tua lly

fo un d th e bo x if the offic er te stified that the box was found just as it appear s in the photogr aph.

F oll ow ingthe be nchc on fe re nc e , th e State pr e se nte d it s w itn e ss, De pu ty Hu g he s. Throug h Deputy Hug hes, the State introduced three of the photogr aphs in q uestion, Ex hibits 25, 26, and 30. Throug h the testimony of De puty

Hug hes, the State did not establish that the word “ Killer” w as written on the box at the t ime it was found. Howe ver, the State next called Se rg e ant T e a g ue , w ho te sti fi e d th a t E xhibi ts 3 1 a nd 38 , w hic h a

re a lso ph oto g ra

ph s of the bo x with th e word “Killer” o nit , a c c u r a te ly d e p ic t w h a t h e o b s e r

v e d th e e v e n in g w h e nh e f

o u n d th e b o x. Thus, the State put on evidence that the word “ Killer” w as on the box when found by the police. To the e xten t th a t F e rn and e z ra ise s o the r o bject io ns to the a dmi ssi on of the se e xhibi ts o n a

pp e a l, including that the photogr aphs we re unduly prejudic i al or that the State f ailed to establish a link betwee n Fe rnande z and the box , those objections wer e not raised at trial and ar e, ther efor e, wa ived. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1.10 Havingfound that F erna

ndez rec eived a ll requested r elief on his obje ct i o n to the admission of these exhibits and t h at an y o t her obje ctions to the admission of these exhibit s were waived, w e over

rule F erna

ndez’s second point of e rror . The points of er

ror a re ove rruled, a

nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Affir med Filed: June 25, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh