NUMBER 13-10-00510-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

JUAN MANUEL HINOJOSA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 103rd District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant, Juan Manuel Hinojosa, appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, a 

second-degree felony enhanced to a habitual-felony offense by two prior felony convictions. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42(b), (c)(1), 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2010). Following a 

jury trial, appellant was found guilty, sentenced to a term of forty years of confinement in the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and fined $10,000. By three 

issues, appellant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to show he intentionally, 
2

knowingly, or recklessly used or exhibited a deadly weapon to stab the complainant; (2) the 

trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the indictment on the first day of trial to allege 

the habitual-felony-offender enhancement; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by 

denying appellant’s oral motion for a ten-day continuance to address the habitual-felony 

offender enhancement. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Offense

During the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the State called nine witnesses. Appellant 

did not call any witnesses or submit any evidence. David Galvan testified that he lived with 

his grandmother and that he was stabbed in his grandmother’s front yard. Earlier that 

evening, he went to a friend’s house to play video games. He left his friend’s house at 

approximately 9:30 or 9:45 p.m. and walked home. When he arrived home, he entered 

through the front door and turned on the television set. After hearing some loud voices 

calling his name, he went outside and saw appellant and Rodolfo Orozco Duran standing 

outside the front gate of the home. Galvan recognized them as they lived a block away. 

Galvan testified that both appellant and Duran appeared nervous and “jittery.” They did not 

appear to be sober, and he believed they were high on cocaine. 

Appellant and Duran asked Galvan for water, and he went inside and brought them 

water. They then asked him for more water, and he went inside and brought them more 

water. When Galvan handed them the second cup of water, one or both of the men asked 

Galvan if he knew where to obtain cocaine, and Galvan stated that he did not. Suddenly, 

Duran struck Galvan with his fist. Appellant and Duran then rushed in through the gate and 

attacked Galvan, punching and kicking him several times. One or both of the assailants 
3

grabbed Galvan’s shirt and pulled it over his head so that he could not see. Nonetheless, 

Galvan attempted to defend himself by punching back. They fought for “quite a while” until 

Galvan was down on one knee. At that point, Galvan’s grandmother, who was inside the 

house, said that she was going to call the police. Appellant and Duran fled. 

After the attack, Galvan went inside the house. He felt warm liquid dripping down his 

spine. He removed his shirt and discovered he was “all bloody.” He had been stabbed by 

a sharp object in both the neck and back. 

On direct examination, Galvan testified that because everything happened so quickly 

and because his shirt was pulled over his head during the struggle, he was not completely 

certain as to what type of weapon was used or who stabbed him. However, on redirect 

examination, Galvan was shown a copy of his statement to the police, taken shortly after the

incident, wherein he indicated to officers that Duran stabbed him with a knife. Galvan then 

testified that his statement to police as to who stabbed him was correct.1 However, he was 

still uncertain as to what type of weapon was used. He could only say that it was a sharp 

object. Galvan did not know why he was attacked. 

Galvan’s grandmother, Flor Estela Torres, testified that she witnessed the incident. 

Torres was at the front door when appellant and Duran approached her home and she saw 

Galvan take appellant and Duran water. Once Galvan provided the second cup of water, 

appellant and Duran attacked him, forcing him back towards the front door where Torres

was standing. She saw the men pull Galvan’s shirt up. “This guy started sticking him with 

something.” As to who did the stabbing, Torres testified that she believed it was appellant, 

 

1

 Galvan testified that he was afraid to testify for fear of retaliation. It was Galvan’s understanding 

that both appellant and Duran were gang members.
4

but that she was not certain. After the assailants ran off, Galvan entered the house, 

bleeding profusely. Torres called the police.

Harlingen police officer Dionicio De Leon testified that he was dispatched to Galvan’s 

home on the night of the stabbing. He was the first officer on the scene. When Officer De 

Leon arrived, he found Galvan hunched over a chain-link fence, bleeding profusely. 

Galvan appeared to have approximately four recently-inflicted lacerations caused by a sharp 

object. Galvan told him that two males had attacked him and that he was stabbed with a 

knife. Galvan identified “Rudy” (Duran) as one of the attackers. Officer De Leon testified 

he saw blood “all over;” there was blood on the sidewalk, front porch, and near the fence. 

He also observed some broken clay pottery in front of the residence, but he did not find a 

knife in the vicinity. Galvan was transported to the hospital by ambulance.

Sergeant Jamie Palafox of the Harlingen Police Department’s gang unit testified that 

he was on patrol when the stabbing call came in and that he went to the crime scene. 

When he arrived, Sergeant Palafox observed Galvan standing in his yard, “bleeding 

profusely from his back.” Sergeant Palafox took statements from Galvan and his 

grandmother and photographed the crime scene. Several hours after the stabbing, 

Sergeant Palafox returned to the neighborhood where the crime occurred and a male 

informant flagged down Sergeant Palafox down. The informant advised him that one of the 

people involved with the stabbing was known as “Borrado.” Sergeant Palafox recognized 

this name as appellant’s nickname. He had made contact with appellant several times in 

the past. 

Investigator Joe Michael Salinas of the Harlingen Police Department testified that he 

also responded to the scene of the aggravated assault. He observed Galvan’s wounds 
5

and, based upon his training and experience, was of the opinion that Galvan had sustained 

stab wounds from a sharp object. Investigator Salinas generated two photo lineups, one 

featuring Duran and the other featuring appellant. Galvan identified both of the men. 

A few hours after the stabbing, Investigator Salinas went on patrol and came across a 

disturbance at a residence about a half block away from where the stabbing occurred. He 

observed appellant and a woman arguing in the front yard of a residence. Appellant, who 

was intoxicated, was detained for public intoxication and as a suspect in the stabbing. With 

the consent of the owner of the residence, Investigator Salinas and other officers entered the 

residence and found Duran in a back bedroom. He was arrested for outstanding municipal 

court warrants. Appellant and Duran were transported to the city jail. 

At the time the suspects were booked, Investigator Michael Fechner observed blood 

splatter on both Duran and appellant’s shirts. A woman who lived near Galvan’s house 

testified that she observed Duran and appellant immediately after the stabbing and that she 

saw blood on Duran’s hands. 

The emergency-room physician who treated Galvan’s injuries testified that Galvan 

had sustained a stab wound to the posterior neck, three stab wounds to the mid-right back, a 

laceration on the back of the head and a bruise on the forehead. Swelling around the stab 

wounds on Galvan’s back indicated force. The stab wounds were linear, and made by a 

sharp object which the physician referred to as a knife. The CT scan administered to 

Galvan did not show any fragments within the wounds which would suggest the wounds 

were caused by, for example, broken glass or porcelain. The treating physician testified 

that the wounds did not look like they were caused by falling on “glass.” Galvan’s medical 

records indicated that he reported to medical providers that he was punched, kicked, and 
6

then stabbed with a knife. The stab wounds were “deep” and at least one was near the 

midline in the center of the back where the vertebrae are located. The physician testified 

that a stab wound to the midline could cause paralysis and a wound that penetrated the rib 

cage could cause death. However, none of Galvan’s stab wounds penetrated the rib cage 

or chest wall. Galvan was treated and released.

B. The Indictment and the State’s Notice of Intent to Enhance Punishment

The State indicted appellant for aggravated assault. In its indictment, the State 

included an enhancement count that alleged appellant had a prior felony conviction for 

burglary of a habitation. In its enhancement count, the State listed a cause number and 

court for the prior offense, but the cause number listed apparently corresponded to a prior 

offense Duran committed, not appellant.

The record reflects that on the morning of trial, and prior to jury selection, the State 

abandoned the enhancement count in the indictment. Rather, the State filed a new 

pleading on the morning of the trial, but before jury selection, titled “State’s Notice of Intent to 

Seek an Enhanced Range of Punishment.” In that pleading, the State gave notice that it 

intended to enhance appellant’s punishment to that of a habitual-felony offender by proving 

two prior felony convictions, in addition to the present offense. 

In response, appellant’s counsel asked the trial court for ten days to prepare for trial 

based on an amendment to the indictment and “short notice” of the enhancement. The trial 

court responded that the amendment did not change the offense charged and said “all it 

does is dismiss an enhancement count.” The trial court denied appellant’s request. Jury 

selection started later the same morning.

The record shows appellant was aware of the habitual-felony offender enhancement
7

prior to jury selection because he rejected a plea offer in which the enhancement was 

discussed. After defense counsel informed the trial court that appellant was rejecting the 

State’s plea offer, the trial court discussed the plea offer with appellant on the record. 

The trial court explained to appellant that he was charged with aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon and that the punishment range for that offense was normally two to twenty 

years. The trial court explained further that the State had given appellant’s attorney notice 

of intent to seek an enhanced punishment range, and, that based on appellant’s two prior 

convictions, the State sought to have him punished as a habitual-felony offender. The trial 

court explained that the punishment range for a habitual-felony offender is twenty-five to 

ninety-nine years or life in prison, and that if he were convicted by the jury, he faced a 

minimum sentence of twenty-five years. Appellant said he understood and told the trial 

court that he was rejecting the State’s plea recommendation of a fifteen-year sentence 

without an enhancement.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant presents the following issues for review:2

(1) Is the evidence sufficient to show appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly 

used a deadly weapon to stab Galvan?

(2) Did the trial court err by allowing the State to amend the indictment on the first day 

of trial to allege the habitual-felony offender enhancement and thereby deprive 

appellant of adequate notice of the enhancement allegations?

(3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel’s oral motion 

for a ten-day continuance to address the habitual-felony offender enhancement?

 

2

 In the interest of judicial economy, we paraphrase appellant’s issues as we deem necessary. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. 
8

III. ANALYSIS

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

By his second issue, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the 

jury’s finding that he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly assaulted Galvan with a deadly 

weapon. Appellant stresses that Galvan and his grandmother both admitted they were 

uncertain regarding the object which was used to cut Galvan and that Galvan’s injuries were 

consistent with cuts received from falling and landing on broken pieces of pottery.

Evidence is insufficient if, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, a 

rational jury could not have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307 (1979)). In evaluating a legal-sufficiency challenge, we consider all of the 

evidence and view it in the light most favorable to the verdict. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. 

The issue on appeal is not whether we, as a court, believe the State’s evidence or believe 

that appellant’s evidence outweighs the State’s evidence. Wicker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 

137, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The verdict may not be overturned unless it is irrational or 

unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839, 846 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses 

and of the strength of the evidence. Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1999). The trier of fact may choose to believe or disbelieve any portion of the 

witnesses’ testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). When 

faced with conflicting evidence, we presume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in favor of the 

prevailing party. Turro v. State, 867 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, if 

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 
9

reasonable doubt, we must affirm. McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).

We measure the sufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the offense as defined 

by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2009) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Such a 

charge is one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not 

unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s 

theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which defendant was 

tried. Id.

A person commits an assault if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes 

bodily injury to another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §22.01(a)(1) (West 2011). The offense is

aggravated assault if the person uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of 

the assault. Id. § 22.02(a)(2). A deadly weapon is “anything that in the manner of its use 

or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. § 1.07(17)(B). In 

this case, the State alleged in the indictment that appellant committed aggravated assault by 

stabbing and or cutting Galvan with a “deadly weapon, to-wit: [a] knife or weapon unknown 

to the grand jury.” 

A knife is not a deadly weapon per se. See Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 

619–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A knife becomes a deadly weapon if its use or intended 

use renders it capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 1.07(a)(17)(B); McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We 

consider whether there is sufficient evidence to show the actor used the knife or intended to 

use the knife in such a way that it was “capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” 
10

Alvarez v. State, 566 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Whether a knife is a deadly 

weapon by design, a deadly weapon by usage, or not a deadly weapon, depends on the 

evidence of each individual case. Thomas, 821 S.W.2d at 620. Factors considered in 

determining whether a knife is a deadly weapon in its use or intended use include the: (1) 

dimensions of the knife, (2) manner of its use or intended use, (3) nature or existence of 

inflicted wounds, and (4) testimony of the knife's life-threatening capabilities, if used. Id. at 

619.

After reviewing the evidence, we conclude a rational jury could have found beyond a 

reasonable doubt that appellant committed aggravated assault with a knife or other deadly 

weapon. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326. As summarized above, substantial evidence,

including Galvan’s statements on the day of the incident (that he was stabbed with a knife), 

Investigator Salinas’s testimony, and expert medical testimony, all support the conclusion 

that appellant used a knife or other sharp object to stab Galvan multiple times, thereby 

causing serious bodily injury. The knife or other weapon was of sufficient size to make 

deep wounds that could have caused death or paralysis had the wounds penetrated the rib 

cage or midline, respectively. Based on the evidence of the severity of the Galvan’s injuries 

and how appellant used the knife or other weapon, there is no doubt the knife or other 

weapon in this case was a deadly weapon. See McCain, 22 S.W.3d at 497 (finding 

evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that a butcher knife was a deadly weapon). 

Appellant’s second issue is overruled.

B. The Indictment and the Sufficiency of the Enhancement Notice 

By his first issue, appellant argues that the trial court effectively allowed the State to 

amend the indictment on the day of trial by letting the State abandon the enhancement 
11

paragraph and provide a new separate notice of habitual-felony offender enhancement. 

Appellant argues that he had insufficient notice of the enhancement allegation to allow him 

to prepare a defense.3 We disagree. 

The record shows that shortly before jury selection began, the State abandoned the 

enhancement allegation included in the indictment. However, the record further shows that 

the State did not “amend” the indictment. “An indictment . . . may not be amended over the 

defendant's objection as to form or substance if the amended indictment . . . charges the 

defendant with an additional or different offense or if the substantial rights of the defendant 

are prejudiced.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 28.10(c) (West 2011); see also id. art.

28.10(b). A “different offense” means a different statutory offense. Stautzenberger v. 

State, 232 S.W.3d 323, 327–28 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing 

Flowers v. State, 815 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). Thus, an amendment to 

an indictment is a change that affects the substance of the indictment. Id. An 

enhancement paragraph is not part of the State’s case-in-chief and is not part of the 

“substance” of an indictment. Id. In fact, enhancement allegations are mere surplusage, 

and need not be pled on the face of the charging instrument. Id. (citing Johnson v. 

State, 214 S.W.3d 157, 158 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.)). The abandonment of 

surplusage does not invoke the requirements of article 28.10(c) of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. Id. (citing Chavis v. State, 177 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex. App.—Houston 

 

3

 Although appellant frames his argument in terms of both the United States and Texas Constitutions, 

he does not separately brief his state and federal constitutional claims. An appellant claiming relief under 

both the federal and state constitutions must “analyze, argue or provide authority to establish that his protection 

under the Texas Constitution exceeds or differs from that provided to him by the Federal Constitution.” Arnold 

v. State, 873 S.W.2d 27, 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we assume appellant claims no greater 

protection under the state constitution than that provided by the federal constitution. See Muniz v. State, 851 

S.W.2d 238, 251–52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
12

[1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd)). Thus, the State may, with the permission of the trial court, 

abandon an enhancement paragraph, as it did in this case. See id. (citing Hall v. 

State, 862 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1993, no pet.)).

The State is not required to give pretrial notice that trial on the substantive offense will 

be followed by a habitual-criminal proceeding. See Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568, 577 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). There is no requirement that the State give ten days’ notice that it 

will seek to enhance punishment. See Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290, 292–94 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006) (holding that “when a defendant has no defense to the enhancement 

allegation and has not suggested the need for a continuance in order to prepare one, notice 

given at the beginning of the punishment phase satisfies the federal constitution”). In 

determining whether appellant received sufficient notice of the State’s intent to enhance 

punishment, we look to the record to identify whether appellant’s defense was impaired by 

the timing of the State’s notice. Pelache, 324 S.W.3d at 577. 

Here, the record contains no evidence that appellant’s defense was impaired by the 

timing of the State’s notice. Appellant had notice of the enhancements at the time of plea 

bargaining. See id. at 578 (considering whether defendant had notice of enhancement at 

the time of plea bargaining). And while appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s 

enhancements and objected that the State should not be allowed to give notice of 

enhancement on the day the guilt-innocence phase of trial started, appellant thereafter

stipulated at the punishment phase to the convictions that formed the basis of the State’s 

habitual-felony offender enhancement. See Villescas, 189 S.W.3d at 295. Appellant did 

not demonstrate during a hearing on a motion for new trial or otherwise, that with earlier 

notice of the enhancements, he would have been better able to defend against the 
13

enhancements at the punishment phase of trial. See id.; Pelache, 324 S.W.3d at 577. We 

overrule appellant’s first issue on appeal.

C. Appellant’s Motion for Continuance

By his third issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for 

a continuance that he made before the trial started, after the State gave its enhancement 

notice. Appellant characterizes his request as an oral motion for a ten-day continuance.

An unsworn oral motion for continuance, like the one in this case, preserves nothing 

for appellate review in the event the trial court denies the motion. See Anderson v. State, 

301 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 29.03, 

29.08 and finding oral, unsworn motion for continuance made just before jury selection 

preserved nothing for appellate review). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s third issue. 

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Gregory T. Perkes

Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

19th day of July, 2012.