T he trial cou rt cumu lated app ellant ’s sente nce wi th his twelv e-y ear sen ten ce in 1 another ca use. NO. 07-06 -046 0-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER25, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ GARY JACK HELLA, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 53, 278 -E; HON. ABE LOP EZ, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t G ar

y Ja ck H ell a pl ead g uil ty

to the jur y of t he offense of attempted ca pit al mu rder w ith a de adly weap on. T he jury assesse d pu nishm entof thirty -f iv e y ears confine ment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of th e T e xas Depar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. 1 Appel lan t present s tw o poi nts of er ro r. W e w il l aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 19. 03(a )(1) ( Verno n 20 05). 2 The tr ier

of fact i s respon si ble for mak ing a de adl y w eapon fin din g . A s b e rr y v. 3 S tate , 813 S.W .2d 5 26, 5 29 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as, 1991, pet. ref’d) , m odifie d by Lo ckett v. State , 874 S.W .2d 8 10, 8 18 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1994, pet. ref ’d ). In a jur y tr ial , t he tr ial cour t i s a uthor iz ed to ente r a deadl y w eapon a ff ir mati v e findi ng i n three i nst ances : ( 1) w here the i ndi ctmentsp eci fical ly al leg es the wo rd s “deadl y w eapon” ; ( 2) w here the indictm entn am es a w eap on which is per se a deadl y w eapon and t he v erdict reads “g uil ty as cha rg ed in the indictm ent ”; and (3) w here a specia l issue i s subm itted to th e trier of fact and ans w ered af

firmat iv ely

. Pol

k v . St ate, 693 S.W .2d 391 , 395 -96 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 85). Procedu ra l and F act ual Bac kg ro und Dur ing an earl y -mor nin g enc ounter w it h pol ic e i n Apr il 2006, appel lan t pul led a . 9 mm pis tol and shotan A mari ll o pol ic e off ic er . T h e b u lle t hitthe off ic er ’s w ri stwatc h and w ri st. Ap pel lan t’ s a ttempt ed c api tal murder i ndi ctmenti ncl uded the all eg ati on that, w it h the specif ic inten t to comm it the of fense of capita l murde r, appe llant at tem pte d to inte ntion ally or kn ow ing ly

ca use the d eath of the peac e off ic er , “by shooti ng at him. ” The i ndi ctment 2 als o i ncl uded a De a d ly W eapon N oti ce parag ra ph, a ll eg ing that“ dur ing the commi ss ion of this offense, the defendant di d us e or ex hib ita de adl y

w eapon, namely , a fire ar m.” Appel lan t el ect ed to al low the jur y to ass ess hi s p uni shment . F oll ow ing v oir di re , he entered a g uil ty

pl ea, w it hout a pl ea ag re ement. After ex cus ing the jur

y and admoni shi ng appel lan t, the t ri al cour t ac cept ed his pl ea. The cour t ins tr uct ed the jur

y to find appe ll ant guilty and instructed them to f ind he used or ex hibi t e d a d ead ly w eap on, a f irearm. No obj ect ion w as made to the c harg e. T h e j u ry found app ell ant g uil ty “ as charg ed i n the ind ictment, ” and, v ia a speci al is sue inc lud ed on the v erdict form, made t he dead ly w eapon f in d in g. 3See T e x. Pe n a l Co d e An n . § 12 .3 2 (Ve rn o n 20 0 3 ) (se tt in g fo rt h pu n ish m e n t ra n ge 4 for f irst de gree felon y

at a term of

imprison me nt for life or not m ore tha n 99 y ears or less than fiv e y ears)

. 3 At t he c oncl usi on of the puni shmentev ide nce, the jur y as ses sed p uni shmentas noted. Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.

4 Ana ly sis Throug h two i ss ues, appel lan t as ser ts there w as no ev ide nce to s uppor t t he a f f irm a ti ve d e a d ly w e a p o n f in d in g an d t h e c o u rtab u se d its di sc re ti o n in st rik in g a prospecti v e j uror

for c ause. Dea dly Weapon Fi

ndi ng Before appel lan t entered his pl ea of g uil ty , t he St ate read t he one- counti ndi ctment , inc lud ing the parag ra ph entit led “deadl y w eapon n oti ce. ” Appel lan t’ s c ontent ion on a ppeal is thathi s p lea o f

gu ilt y appl ied onl y

to the c harg ing parag ra ph of the ind ictment, and the cour t di d notse paratel y

as k w hether h e a ck now led g ed th e tr uth o f the deadl y w eapon allegation . Th us, ap pellan t argues, the g uilty plea provides no suppo rt for the jury ’s dead ly w eapon fin din g . W e di sag re e, an d ov er ru le the i ss ue. It is w ell es tabl is hed t hat i n felony ca ses , a ple a of g uil ty before the j ur y admi ts the ex is tenc e of al l ele ments neces sar y to est abl is h g uil t and, in suc h c ases , t he i ntroduct ion of ev ide nce by

the Stat e i s o nly

to enabl e the j ur

y to int ell ig entl y

ex erci se the d is creti on w hic h the l a w ves ts in the m to d eter mine puni shment

. Addick s v . St ate, 15 S .W .3d 6 08, 61 2 ( Tex .A pp .– H ou s to n [1 4 D i s t. ] 20 00 , pe t. ref’d) ( citi ng Holl and v . St ate, 761 S.W .2d thAppel lan t ana log iz es to Dor sey v. Sta te , 117 S .W .3d 3 32 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont 5 200 3, pe t. ref ’d), in w hic h t h e app ellate court reforme d a judgm entto dele te a de adly w eapon fin din g . The murd er i ndi ctmentch arg ed that the defendant caus ed “ the s hooti ng dea th” of the v ictim, “ by shoo ting her.” The jury foun d the defend antg uilty “as charged in the i ndi ctment ,” w it hout an ex press f ind ing as to the use of a deadly w eapon. Id . at343. By co n tr ast , we find here tha t app ell ant p lea d g uil ty to an i ndi ctment

thatco ntai ned an ex pli ci t dea dly

w eapon a ll eg ati on. 4 3 07, 3 12 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988) ); see als o Will iam s v . St ate, 6 7 4 S

. W

. 2 d 315, 318 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) (n oti ng that no ev ide nce need be entered w hen appel lan t ple ads guilty before a jury ; evidence is nece ssary for a guilty plea before the court only ). In such cas es, the ple a o f

gu ilty i s c oncl usi v e as to the d efendant's g uil t and there i s n o q uest ion of the s uff ic ien cy

of t h e e vide n ce on appe al. Ex par te M ar ti n, 747 S.W .2d 7 89, 7 92 (Tex .C ri m. App. 1988) ( op. o n reh’ g ); Rattham one v . St ate, 111 S.W .3d 7 84, 7 85- 86 (Tex .App. –For

t W o rt h 2 0 03, n o pet .) ; Stahle v . St ate, 970 S.W .2d 6 82, 6 88 (Te x .Ap p.– Dallas 199 8, pe t. ref ’d). App ellantcites us to no aut hority requiring tha t w e dissectthe de adly weap on n otice all eg ati on from h is pl ea of g uil ty i n the manner his arg ument s ug g est s. As note d, t he s ing lecountindi ctment , w it h its deadly w eapon noti ce, w as rea d immediat ely pri or to his pl ea, a nd nothi ng i n the record s ug g est s a ppel lan t’ s p lea of g uil ty appl ied to les s than the e nti re ty of the i ndi ctment ’s al leg ati ons. Cf . R udnick

v. Sta te , N o . 0 3 - 0 2 - 0 0 7 6 7 - C R , 2 0 0 3 WL 22023435, *2 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n, A ug ust29, 2003) ( mem. op.)( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( defendant’ s a ck now led g ment of g uil t to “e ach and ev er y all eg ati on” of multi ple count ind ictment inc lud ed deadl y w eapon all eg ati on)

. A ple a of g uil ty to an i ndi ctmentthat include s an allegation th e defend antused a dea dly w eap on a uth oriz es an af f irmative dea dly wea p o n f in d in g. Me za v . St ate , No. 01- 97- 01345- CR , 1999 W L 11742 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on 5As the State also not es, a p p e ll a n tt e s t if ie d o n p u n is h m e n t

. Du ri n g h is t e s t im o n y, 6 he i denti fied th e pi sto l he us ed to sh oot t he officer , and ac know led g ed i ts deadl y natu re . W e express no opin ion w het her app ellant ’s e v iden tiarysu f f iciency com plaintw ith respe ct to t he dead ly

w eapon fin din g w as forecl osed by hi s a dmis si on of use of a deadl y w eapon in the c omm iss io n of the offense. See Leday v. Sta te, 983 S.W .2d 7 13, 7 25- 26 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 98). 5 [1 D is t.] Ja nuar

y 14, 1999, pet. re f’d) ( mem. op., not designat ed for publ ic ati on) , citi ng st Alexander

v. Sta te , 868 S.W .2d 3 56, 3 61 ( Tex .App.

– Dal las 1993, no p et.)W e find appel lan t’ s p lea of g uil ty to thi s i ndi ctmentsu ppor ted t he j ur

y’s a f f irmati v e ans w er

to the spec ial i ss ue. 6 Str ik ing of Pr ospec ti ve Jur

or Dur ing v oir

di re , a member of t he v eni re ind ic ated she had some t ro ubl e w it h the ty pe of case i nv olv ed and the a ppl ic abl e rang e of puni shment

. She t old the cour t s he had a s on near the ag e of appel lan t. The St ate i ncl uded he r in it s lis t o f c h a lle ng es for c ause. Appel lan t obj ect ed. Cou nsel sai d, “I thi nk she needs an oppor tuni ty to di sc uss ,” and arg ued the p anel member

di d notsayshe could not deli berate or be fair

. The tr ial courtand both par ti es then q uest ion ed the prosp ect iv e juror f urther , af

ter w hic h the tr ial co urt ex cus ed her w it hout obj ect ion from app ell ant. On appeal , appell ant conte nds that the tr ial courtabused its disc re ti on in ex cus ing the p ro specti v e j uror . Both the S tate and app ell ant c it e Kem p v . St ate , 84 6 S .W .2d 2 89 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1992)

. In K e mp , t he defendant soug ht further q uest ion ing of a panel member. After

the further

q uest ion ing , t he St ate c hal len g ed th e member for c ause and t he tr ial co urt g ra nted the S tate’ s c hal len g e w it houtobj ect ion from t he defendant. Id . at302.6

The appel lat e c our

t not ed th e s ettl ed r ule thati f a n appell ant d oes not o bje ct w hen a me mb er of the v enire is excused for cause , the app ellantmay not cha llenge the trial court’s deci si on on appeal

. Id . It found t hat t he defendant’ s a cti on s eeki ng furth er q uest ion ing of the pan el me mb er did not giv e the trial court an indicat ion he w as opp osed to th e co u rt ’s ru li ng . W e think

the same is true here. A ppel lan t’ s o bje cti on s oug ht further q uest ion ing of th e p a n e l m ember

but no obj ect ion w as ra is ed to her rele ase from se rv ic e after sh e w as q uest ion ed i n det ail

. W e find appel lan t’ s i ss ue present s n othi ng for o ur rev iew

. Mo re ov er , hav ing re v iewed the panel members ’ re spons es dur ing v oir di re , we find the c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by g ran ti n g t h e State’ s c hal len g e for caus e. Her res po ns es t o th e q ue s ti on s o f c ou ns el a nd the co ur t w ere v ac i l l at i ng , eq ui v oc al and t o s om e extent co n tr a d ict or

y . In rev iew ing a t ri al cour t' s d eci si on to di smi ss a po tenti al juror on a susta ined challen ge fo r cause, co nside rable de feren ce is g iv en to the trial judge, w ho is in the b estpos it ion to ev alu ate the potent ial j urors; the j udg e benefit s from obs er v ati on of the ind iv idu al’ s d emeanor

and re spons es w hil e an appel lat e c our t has o n lythe col d record. Cha m ber

s v . St ate, 866 S.W .2d 9 , 22 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) , citi ng C antu v. State, 842 S. W .2 d 6 6 7 , 68 1 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 19 9 2 ). W h e n th e p o te n ti a l ju ro r's a n swers a re vaci lla ti n g, uncl ear or co ntradi cto ry , t he tr ial j udg e's obser v ati on is par

ti cul ar ly i mport ant. Chambers, 866 S. W .2d a t 22. I n rev iew ing the tr ial jud g e's deci si on to sus tai n a chal len g e for caus e, w e as k w hether

the total ity

of the voir

di re tes ti mony

suppor ts the tr ial j udg e's findi ng “ that the prospecti v e juror is unabl e to tak e the req uis it e oat h and follo w the law as g iv en by

the trial jud ge, ” a nd o nl y

i f a c l ea r

a bu s e of d i s c ret i on i s d em on s trat ed w i l l t he t r i al j ud ge's7

deci si on be re v ersed. Id. Appel lan t’ s s econd poi nt of er ro r is ov er ru led

. Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s p oin ts of error , we aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.