NO. 07-07 -030 2-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 TOBER31, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RENE GONZALE S, APP ELL ANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 42 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF CA L DW EL L COU NT Y; ST NO. 200 3-21 5; HON. T ODD BLOMERT H, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ORDER ON M OT ION FOR REHEARING By opi nio n dat ed Octo b e r 3, 20 08, t his co urt affirmed the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ments re g ardin g appel lan t’ s c onv icti ons and sent ences for the o ffenses of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. Pursuantto Rul e 49. 1 o f the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proced ure, ap pellan t has filed a mo tion fo r rehe aring cont end ing tha t this court erron eou sly deci ded t he i ss ues present ed as w ell as fail ed to address hi s req uestto modify the jud g ment t o reflectthe cor re ct deg re e of felony reg ard in g t h e ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng conv icti on. Ev en w it h the addi ti onal br iefin g and the p re se n tm e n t o f more recentca ses-2-

regarding the issue of

dou ble jeo pard y , w e rema in convinced tha t the issu es in the case w ere proper ly

dec ide d; ho w ev er, we a cknow led g e tha t w e fail ed to tak e any acti on on app ellant ’s requestto mo dif y the aggrav ate d kidna ppin g judgme nt to ref lect the correct deg re e of felony . W e grant the motion for rehear ing , w it hdraw our opi nio n of October

3, 2008, and s ubst it ute t he foll ow ing opi nio n: OPINIO N ON R EHEARING Appel lan t, Ren e Gon z ale s, appeal s h is co nv icti on for the o ff e nses of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t and se ntenc es of f iv e y ears i ncarcerati on and fine of $10,0 00 on each count
. W e modi fy the j u d gm ent o f agg ra v ated ki dnappi ng and aff ir m the jud g ment of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. Back g ro und On N ov ember

10, 2002, appel lan t and the compla in a n t w ere mar ri ed and li v ing togeth er in a trailer located in Caldw ell Count y . Af ter a late night, app ellanta rriv ed a t the ir home and beg an to undress to ge t re a dy for b ed. W hil e appel lan t und re ss ed, t he compl ain ant o bser

v ed a “h ic key ” on appe ll ant and became ups et be caus e s he as sumed appel lan t had been cheat ing on h er . The compl ain ant d eci ded t o g o to another room to sl eep sep a ra te from app ell ant b ut ap pel lan t foll ow ed her
. Al thoug h the co mplai nant resisted app ellant ’s advance s, app ellant forced him self on the compla inan t and sex ually ass aul ted h er

by i nser ti ng hi s mal e s ex ual org an i nto h er female sex ual org an. Appel lan t then le ft th e room and loc ked the c omplai nant in the room. The compl ain ant fel l asl eep but, upon w aki ng , c all ed outto appel lan t to rel ease her
. Ins tead, appel lan t retur ned and proceed ed to sex ual ly ass aul t compl ain ant a sec ond ti me. Appel lan t then loc ked her i n the-3-

ro om ag ain
. After th e co mplai nant’ s d aug hter beg an to ca ll her

ce ll phone, appel lan t entered th e room and all ow ed th e c omplai nant to bri efly sp eak to he r daug hter
. After the phone c all , t h e c o m p la inant i nformed app ell ant t hat s he w as g oin g to file for di v orce. Appel lan t t hen proceed ed to as saul t t he c omplai nant a thi rd ti me. After t he c omplai nant beg an to re si st ag ain , appel lan t obtai ned a s hotg un and threatened her
. Appel lan t poi nted the g un atthe compl ain ant a nd th en proceed ed to pl ace the b ar re l of the s hotg un i nto t he compl ain ant' s s ex ual org an. Ev entual ly , appell ant rel eased the compl ain ant b ut w ar ned her thathe woul d hav e s omeone w atc hin g her. The c omplai nant w ent t o w or k t he next day but s aid noth ing to her

co w or kers. Ev entual ly , the complai nant left her w or k and w ent t o the hosp ital for a checku p w here she revealed th e facts of the assa ult to a nu rse. Becau se of the l ack

of proper

eq uip ment, the d oct or had the c omplai nant trans fer re d to another hospi tal w here a rape ex am w as per formed. Appel lan t w as ar re ste d and charg ed by i ndi ctment
. On t he first count , app ell ant w as charg ed by four parag ra phs w it h ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng ; eac h of the parag ra phs charg ed appel lan t w it h ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng , di ffer ing onl y i n t h e ag g ra v ati ng factor
. Appel lan t w as als o c harg ed w it h two c ounts o f a ggra vat ed s ex ual as saul t. At tr ial , t he j ur y found appel lan t not g uil ty of on e count of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t, but found a ppel lan t g uil ty of one co unt o f agg ra v ated ki dnappi ng and one c ount of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t. U pon conv icti on, t he ju ry a ssess ed puni shmentat fiv e y ears i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imina l Jus ti ce and a fine of $10,0 00 for each offense, but re commended that appel lan t be pla ced on c ommunity su per v is ion
. Appel lan t app eal s h is co nv icti ons and sent ences by three is sues . Fi rs t, appel lan t cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d by

fail ing t o a d m ittes ti mony of tw o w it ness es to s how-4-

tha t the comp lainan t retracte d he r repo rt to law enforcem ent tha t app ellant had rape d he r. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant c ontends thatthe conv icti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t is bar re d by Dou ble Jeopa rd y becau se the conv icti on is a les ser-i ncl uded offense of a ggra vat ed ki dnappi ng . Fi nal ly , as to the ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng offense, appel lan t c ontends thatthe trial c o u rt e rr e d in instructing the jury tha t it did notnee d to agree on one singl e the ory re g ardin g the commi ss ion of the o ffense, but that the j ur y co uld depend on any

of the four a ggr a va t in g fa c t o rs t o re t u rn a c o n vic t io n fo r ag gra va t e d k id n a p p in g. A d d i t i o n a ll y, app ellantdirects us to t h e r e c o rd upo n w hich th e Sta te informs th e trial court tha t it is p ro c e e d i n g on th e ag g ra v a t e d ki d n a p p i n g co u n tas a s e c o n d de g re e fel o n y . W e m o d i fy the judg ment on ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and aff ir m the jud g ment on ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t. Ex cl usi on of W it ness Testi mony A tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t or ex cl ude ev ide nce is re v iew ed under an abus e of discretion st and ard. See W eat herred v. State , 15 S. W .3d 540 , 542 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0); Green v . Stat e, 934 S.W .2d 92, 101- 02 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Mo ntg omery v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d. 372, 3 9 0 ( T e x.C ri m.App. 1990) ( op. o n reh’ g ). A re v iew ing co urt s houl d not rev ers e a tr i al j ud g e’ s d ec i s i on w ho s e r ul i ng w as w i th i n th e z on e of rea s on able dis ag re ement. Green, 934 S.W .2d a t 102
. See al so Guz man v . St ate, 955 S. W .2d 8 5, 89 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 97). If the trial judge's decision is correct on any theory of law app licable to the cas e, the deci si on w il l be sus tai ned. See Stat e v . Ros s, 32 S.W .3d 8 5 3 , 855-56 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. Appel lan t c ontends thatthe compl ain ant tol d his mother thatthe compl ain ant h ad fabri cat ed th e s tor

y and that appel lan t had nev er se x u a lly assaul ted h er . Appel lan t-5-

prof fered the te stimo ny of

app ellan t’ s mother con ten ding thatthe te stimo ny w as ad missible as a hearsay

ex cept ion
. See T EX . R. E V ID . 803( 24)
. How ev er , the compl ain ant a dmitted on th e w it ness st and t hat s he had made statement s to others that appel lan t had not ra ped her
. Hen ce, appel lan t' s mother ’s proffered tes ti mony added no addi ti onal i nformati on and w oul d hav e s impl y

bol ste re d tes ti mony

al re ady before the j ur

y . S e e C o h n v . St ate, 849 S.W .2d 8 17, 820 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) ( pr ior co nsi ste nt s tatementi s p ro hib it ed w hen t he sole pu rpose is to enha nce th e credibility of a w itness). As to t he proffered testi mony of the compl ain ant’ s son, appel lan t contend s that the son w oul d hav e tes ti fied th at he ove rh eard the complai nant at a Chr is tmas par ty st ate t hat the s ex ual assaul t nev er happen ed. A rev iew

of the record demons trates thatappel lan t did not obj ectto the e x cl usi on of the son’ s tes ti mony , buti n fact ag re ed w it h the Sta te t hat t h e s t a tem entat the Christmas pa rty w as con sistentw ith the comp lainan t’s testim ony. Hen ce, appel lan t w aiv ed any er ro r in the e x cl usi on of thattes ti mony . See J ones v . St ate, 833 S.W .2d 118 , 126 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2) (af f irmative accep tan ce w aives anyerror). Appel lan t al so cont ends that th e c omplai nant’ s s on woul d hav e tes ti fied th at compla in ant a dmitted t he fals ity of her al leg ati ons dur ing a ph one c onv ersat ion imm edia tely prior t o t he co mm ence me nt of the trial. How ever, according to the son’s tes ti mony , proffered i n a h ear ing outs ide the presenc e of the ju ry , t he c omplai nant did not state thatthe assa ult ne v er occurred; rather, th e com plaina nt simp ly state d he r relucta nce to t est ify . As suc h, the tri al cour t’ s rul ing to ex cl ude such tes ti mony is w it hin the z one of re asona ble di sag re ement an d i s n ot s ubj ectto re v ersal by a rev iew ing court
. See G re en, 934 S. W .2d a t 102
.-6-

W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts d isc re ti on i n ex cl udi ng the tes ti mony

of appel lan t' s mother or the compl ain ant’ s son. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s first and secon d issues. Dou ble Je opardy Is sue Next, appe llant con ten ds tha t the o f fense of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt is a l esserinc lud ed offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng as it w as all eg ed i n the i ndi ctmenton w hic h he w as conv icted. Spec ific all y , app ell ant c ontends thatthe Stat e w as re q uired to prov e tha t ap pe l l an t us ed a d ea dl y w ea po n i n c om mi tt i ng t he s ex ua l a s s au l t, w hi c h w as t he s am e ag g ra v ati ng el ement i n the kidnapp ing charg e; thus, appell ant conte nds he w as conv icted mult ipl e ti mes for

the same o ffense. W e di sag re e. T he “ s am e el em en ts ” te s t fi rs t ar ti c ul at ed by th e U ni te d St at es Su prem e C ourt in Bl ock burg er

v . U nit ed St ates , 284 U .S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct . 180 , 76 L.Ed 306 ( 1932) , is used by Tex as courts t o det er mine if two c onv icti ons cons ti tute “mul ti ple puni shment ” under dou ble jeo pard y . S e e L angs v . Stat e, 18 3 S.W .3d 680 , 685 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6). Fur ther , t he Tex as cour

ts hav e de cid e d t hat t he c ommis si on of a felon y and a s econd felony thatal leg es the i ntentto commi t t he first fe lo n y a re two di sti nctcr imi nal acts and each offense re q uires the S tate to prov e an ele m e n t that the other does not. Se e i d. at 686. In rev iew ing the ind ictm e n t a n d the j ur y ch arg e i n thi s c ase, C ount I al leg ed four different means of committi ng the offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng ; how ev er , onl y one of the p arag ra phs re ferred to a sex ual assaul t in the commis si on of the offense of ag g ra v ated ki dna p p ing
. In t hat o ne parag ra ph th at referenc ed a sex ual as saul t as an a g g ra v ati ng factor of the a g g ra v ated ki dnappi n g, appell ant was all eg ed to hav e c ommitt ed th e-7-

ki dnappi ng by

abducti ng the compl ain ant “ w it h the i ntentto v iol ate o r abuse the compl ain ant s ex ual ly .” ( Emphasi s a dded)
. In C ount II of the ind ict m e n t, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h int enti onal ly or know ing ly sex ual ly as saul ti ng the compl ain ant. Thus, by one parag ra ph of

Count I, a ppel lan t w as charg ed w it h c ommitt ing a k idn appi ng ag g ra v ated by the i ntentto commi t a sex ual a ss aul t. This i s a di sti nctcr imi nal offense from the act ual c o m m is s io n o f

a ggr a va t e d se xu a l a s s a u l ta s a ll e ge d in Co u n tI I
. Se e id
. He n c e , we conc lud e tha t, for eac h offense all eg ed, t he St ate was re q uired to prov e an ele ment t hat w as not a n el ement of the othe r all eg ed offense. I d . Therefore , t he c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t is not bar re d by doubl e j eopardy
. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue. Jur y U nani mity Fi nal ly , app ell ant c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d and that he s uffered eg re g iou s har m due t o the tr ial co urt’ s j ur y i nst ru cti on th at a unani mous v erdict w as not req uired for the o ffense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . Al thoug h the Sta te c ontends thatC ount I of the ind ictment li ste d di fferent “ manner and means” in w hic h i t c harg ed appe ll ant w it h one count of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng , app ell ant c ontends thatthe sta tute created different ty pes of aggravated kid n a p p in g by separate ly listing the po ssible aggravating fa ctors and , as a re sul t, that the S tate charg ed appe ll ant w it h mul ti ple v iol ati ons of the ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng sta tute. Se e T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20.04( a) & (b ) ( Ver non 2003). H ence, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial cour t er re d in ins tr uct ing the jur y thati t c oul d find appel lan t g uil ty of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng i n g eneral w it hout hav ing to ag re e on any one ag g ra v ati ng factor
. Appel lan t c ontends that the st atute defines ki dnappi ng as a c onduct- or ien ted of fense and tha t jury una nim ity is required as to the mo de of com m is s io n . Howev er,-8-

appel lan t has ci ted n o aut hor ity for h is cont enti on th at ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng i s a co nduct or ien ted o ffense. T exas courts have long held tha t the State m ay plea d altern ate “m ann er and mea ns” o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f

t h e s a m e o f

fe n s e . W i l l i s v . S t a t e , 3 4 T e x . C r i m . 1 4 8 , 1 4 9 , 2 9 S
. W. 787, 788 ( 1895) . An i ndi ctme n t m a y co ntai n as many

parag ra phs as are nec ess ar y to all eg e the v ar iou s manner and means of committi ng one all eg ed offense. Cal li ns v . St ate, 780 S. W .2d 1 76, 1 8 2 -8 3 ( T e x.C ri m.App.1 986)
. If the s tatut e i n q uest ion es tabl is hes dif feren t ma nne r an d m e a n s b y w hich th e of

fense may be com mitt ed, una nim ity is g enerall y not req uired on the a lt er nate manner and means of the offense’s co mmiss ion
. Jef ferson v . Stat e, 18 9 S.W .3d 305 , 312 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6). Th e Sta te ne ed n ot ele ct betw een v ar iou s t heor ies al leg ed i n c harg ing a s ing le cr imi nal act or ev ent a nd th e j ur

y may cons i d e r a l l t h e o r i e s a n d re t u r n a g e n e ra l v e rd i c t o f g u i l t y . S e e F ra n k l i n v . S t a t e , 606 S.W .2d 8 18, 8 21 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 978) ; R odr ig uezv . St ate, 9 7 0 S.W .2d 6 6, 69 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1998, pet. ref'd)
. W hen a spec ificact i s c ri minal iz ed bec ause of its v er y natu re , a culpab le mental state app lies to com mitt ing the act itself and , thu s the of

fense is nature or con duct orient ed. See Herrera v . Stat e, 91 5 S.W .2d 94, 97 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 199 6, no pet. ). On th e oth er han d, un specif ied con ductthati s criminaliz ed o nly beca use o f its result re q u i re s i n t e n ta s t o t h a tre s u l ta n d i s , t h e re fo re , a re s u l t - o r i e n t e d o f fe n s e . I d
. W e conc lud e tha t, as a matt er of law , how

a person commi ts a kidn appi ng , i.e. , how the person re strain s o r prev ents the li berati on of an other , does not make the offense condu ct- or ien ted becau se the u lt imat e i ss ue in a ki dnappi ng offense is the abducti on of the v icti m, i .e., the re sul t. See Phi ll ips v. State, 597 S.W .2d 929, 936 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1980)
. Therefore, t he-9-

offense of ki dnappi ng i s a resul t- or ien ted o ffense. By extens ion , ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng is al so a resul t- or ien ted o ffense w hic h rais es the l ev el of cul pabi li ty i n a k idn appi ng by

the addi ti on of an ag g ra v ati ng ci rc umstan ce, a s peci fic i ntentdefined by st atute , bei ng present at t he ti me of the ab duct ion
. See i d. Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat a g g ra v ated ki dnappi ng is a re sul t- or ien ted o ffense, w e c an then deter mine w hether the Stat e al lege d m u lt ipl e v iol ati ons of the s ame st atute as appel lan t c ontends b y d eter mini ng the appropr iat e al low abl e uni t of prosec uti on for ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . See Mi les v. State, 259 S.W .3d 240, 248 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 200 8, no pet. h.) (t o de term ine if a person has com mitt ed m ultiple violations of a single sta tute, w e mustdete rmi ne th e “ all ow abl e uni t of prosec uti on” for t hat o ffense)
. By v ir tue of being a resul t- or ien ted offense, w e c oncl ude t hat t he al low abl e uni t of prosec uti on for the of fense of agg rav ate d kidna ppin g relate s to the a bdu ction of a victim. I n oth er w ords, the S tate is al low ed to prosec ute a person for eac h v icti m ki dnapped, not for th e number of ag g ra v ati ng factors t hat may be present
. In this case, the Stat e al leg ed one v icti m and has so ught only a sing le conviction for the o f fense of agg rav ate d kidna ppin g, regardless of the number of ag g ra v ati ng fact ors all eg ed in C ount I. Therefore, the t ri al cour t di d not er r in ins tr uct ing the jur y thati t coul d consi der

all of the ag g ra v ati ng fact ors a ll eg ed by the Stat e and re tur n a g eneral v erdict of gui lty for the offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . See Franklin, 60 6 S.W .2d at 82 1; Rod rig uez, 970 S.W .2d at 69. W e overrule appe llant’s third is sue. Refor mati on of Ag g ra v ated Ki dnappi ng Ju dg ment As a footnote, appel lan t di re cte d thi s c our t t o a p orti o n o f

t he transc ri pt of the puni shmenthear ing demons trati ng that the Stat e present ed th e i ndi ctmentof ag g ra v atedAc cordin g to the Tex as Penal C ode, the defendant may ra is e the i ss ue of w hether 1 he v olu ntar il y

rele ased the v icti m in a safe pl ace. Se e T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20.04( d) (V er non 200 3)
. If the de fendant prov es the is sue by a preponderance of t he ev ide nce, the offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng i s a se cond deg re e felony
. See i d. -10- ki dnappi ng as a s econd deg re e felony ; how ev er , t he j udg ment of the offense li sts the of fense a s a f irst degree felon y . A review of the reco rd of

the pu nishm enthea ring rev eals 1 that the t ri al cour

t, upon t he req uestof the S tate, as ked both si des as to t he ex is tenc e of a stipu lation agreeing that Coun t I, “as alleged an d as the e v iden ce cam e in,” w as a sec ond- deg re e felony

agg ra v ated ki dnappi ng . Both si des aff ir mati v ely ans w ered as to the sti pul ati on. Fur

ther , t he cour

t charg ed the jur

y as to the p uni shmentrang e on ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng as a s econd deg re e felony
. W e c oncl ude that an oral sti pul ati on c an be suf f icient to supp ort app ellant ’s position thatthe ju dg me nt of agg rav ate d kidna ppin g shou ld be modi fied to ac curatel y reflect the conv icti on to be a second deg re e felo ny . See St ri ng er v . St ate, 241 S. W .3d 5 2, 58 -5 9 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; W il li ams v . St ate, 641 S. W .2d 9 25, 926 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1982)
. Con seq uentl y , w e modi fy the j udg ment t o reflectthe deg re e of the offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng i n thi s c ase to be a s econd deg re e felony
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43 .2(b). Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment on ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t and modi fy the j udg ment on ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . Mackey K. Hancock Justice Publ is h.