TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00125-CR

Gabino Hernandez-Dominguez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-17-206863, HONORABLE CLIFFORD A. BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

A jury convicted Gabino Hernandez-Dominguez of the second-degree felony 

offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon-family violence for threatening imminent 

bodily injury with a knife to his live-in girlfriend. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2), (b); see 

also id. § 12.33 (setting punishment range of two to twenty years’ imprisonment for seconddegree felonies). The jury assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment and returned a 

verdict form leaving open space in the portion for recommending that the court suspend the 

assessed sentence and place Hernandez-Dominguez on community supervision. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. art. 42A.055(a). The district court read the jury’s punishment verdict aloud in open 

court and confirmed with the presiding juror that this was the jury’s verdict. HernandezDominguez declined polling the jury.
2

On appeal, Hernandez-Dominguez contends that the jury’s punishment verdict 

reflects a community-supervision recommendation and that his judgment of conviction should be 

modified to reflect that his sentence was “probated.” We will affirm the district court’s judgment

of conviction.

BACKGROUND1

Evidence during guilt-innocence phase

The jury heard evidence that a neighbor in Hernandez-Dominguez’s four-plex 

awoke after hearing a “banging noise” and a female voice “crying out” from downstairs at 4:00 

a.m. The neighbor called 911. An audio recording of her 911 call was admitted into evidence. 

Austin Police Department officers responded to the scene in south Austin. A 

woman, later identified as Hernandez-Dominguez’s girlfriend, answered the door crying and ran 

out. Through the open door, officers saw a man, later identified as Hernandez-Dominguez,

pacing back and forth while “sweating profusely.” His pockets were full of bulging items, and 

he was holding a broken glass in one hand and a wall thermostat in the other. After police 

officers told him that they wanted to talk to him, Hernandez-Dominguez allowed them inside.

He continued to exhibit “odd behavior,” and when he threw the broken glass from his hand into a 

bedroom and began punching a bedroom door, officers decided to frisk him for weapons. He 

struggled with the officers and was placed in handcuffs. A video recording from the dashboard 

camera of a patrol car parked facing the front of the four-plex, which captured sounds of 

1

 Because Hernandez-Dominguez raises no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting his conviction, we provide only a brief summary of the facts underlying his

conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring issuance of opinion that is brief as possible but 

addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of appeal).
3

Hernandez-Dominguez’s yelling, was admitted into evidence. Officers recovered a knife with a 

six-or-seven-inch blade from the scene.

Another officer spoke with Hernandez-Dominguez’s girlfriend, who stated that 

Hernandez-Dominguez had not slept in six days, that he had been sharpening knives in the 

kitchen, and that he had threatened her with a knife. She also mentioned that he had white 

powder in his nostril, and officers suspected that cocaine use was involved.

Hernandez-Dominguez’s girlfriend testified that she had been living with him at 

the time of the incident and that they had been dating for over two years. On the date of the 

offense, she awoke to a loud noise, and when she saw Hernandez-Dominguez in the kitchen she 

asked him why he had not gone to bed yet. He got two knives, began sharpening them against 

each other, and approached her asking, “What do you want, you f—g bitch, do you want me to 

kill you?” She tried to calm him by telling him that he was sleep deprived. He threw the knives 

in the kitchen sink and said, “Oh, so you’re not afraid of these.” He grabbed a bigger knife and 

pointed it within five inches from her stomach asking, “Do you want me to kill you?” Fearing 

that he might stab her with the knife if she argued with him, she asked him to calm down. He 

spit in her face. Then he returned to the kitchen; put the knife back; and tried to hit her with 

other objects, including a picture frame and a bench or stool that he threw near her feet. She 

yelled loudly. Shortly afterward, she saw patrol-car lights through a window of the apartment. 

After his arrest, Hernandez-Dominguez called his girlfriend from jail, repeatedly 

asking her to withdraw the charges against him. He told her that he had done nothing to her and 

that “[i]t’s [her] fault” but that he forgave her “for having sent the cops after [him].” A redacted 

transcript of Hernandez-Dominguez’s jail phone call to his girlfriend was admitted into evidence 

without objection. 
4

Hernandez-Dominguez testified in his own defense. He stated that he was 

originally from Mexico and had lived in Austin for about five years by the time of the offense. 

He admitted that he was high on cocaine when his girlfriend began arguing with him, but he 

denied threatening her with a knife. He claimed that she was angry because she had previously 

seen him with another woman and suspected that instead of going to work that day, he had been 

with the other woman again. He also stated that his cocaine use was “just a problem that [his 

girlfriend] brings out” because of the way that she treats him. At the conclusion of the guiltinnocence phase, the jury convicted Hernandez-Dominguez as charged. 

Evidence during punishment phase

After the guilty verdict and outside of the presence of the jury, the parties briefly 

attempted to reach a sentencing agreement. But Hernandez-Dominguez’s counsel informed the 

district court, “My client says that he is only willing to accept a prison sentence that is probated.”

Thus, the case proceeded to the punishment phase before the jury, during which it heard about 

Hernandez-Dominguez’s criminal history, consisting of a 2006 misdemeanor conviction for the 

offense of resisting arrest. The jury also heard testimony from Hernandez-Dominguez’s 

girlfriend and a court liaison for probation.

Hernandez-Dominguez’s girlfriend testified about other assaults that HernandezDominguez had perpetrated against her. She said that he had once accused her of sleeping with 

his co-worker, who was renting a bedroom in their apartment, and that Hernandez-Dominguez 

pushed her against a wall and slapped her face causing a nosebleed and a cut inside her cheek. 

She also testified about another incident that occurred when she refused to take Hernandez-
5

Dominguez to buy beer. He grabbed her by her hair, forced her to crawl to the parking lot, and 

threw her to the ground.

The court liaison testified about probation obligations and types of services 

available to defendants who are convicted and placed on probation. She also testified about the 

difficulties of supervising a probationer who is not a United States citizen, noting that the 

probationer might be detained by immigration enforcement or deported during his probationary 

period, complicating the completion of probation services. She stated that when a probationer is 

deported, his probation does not cease, and that he may report by mail. However, her experience

was that probationers did not faithfully report after being deported, and that such cases typically 

remained open with an active warrant for violation of community supervision. She 

acknowledged the possibility that a probationer might never serve his sentence after deportation.

At the conclusion of the evidence on punishment, the district court provided the 

parties with the court’s proposed charge on punishment. Hernandez-Dominguez had no 

objections to that charge and made no requests for additions to or deletions from it. Because 

Hernandez-Dominguez filed a pretrial application for community supervision alleging that he 

“ha[d] not been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state,” the charge included that 

punishment option. The charge also included an instruction to the jury that if they did not want 

to recommend his placement on community supervision, they should say nothing about it in their 

verdict: “If you do not desire to grant community supervision to this defendant, you will say 

nothing in your verdict concerning the same.”

During closing arguments on punishment, the prosecutor told the jury that if they

were to recommend probation, “the only sentence you need to give, the only sentence 

whatsoever is 10 years [of community supervision]. Anything less than that is not an [e]ffective 
6

enough deterrent. Ten years is the maximum sentence.” Defense counsel told the jury during

closing that if they determined that Hernandez-Dominguez should not have his sentence 

probated, they were not required to assess punishment at more than ten years’ imprisonment:

“You can give him any term. . . . If you give him four years, you can say we think he should 

serve four years in prison, and we don’t think it should be community supervision. That’s what

the verdict form shows you in the back.” Defense counsel also noted the two-part determination 

that the jury was asked to make in its verdict: “You’re going to first be asked to assess a 

sentence, and then if it’s two to ten years, whether or not it should be community supervision or 

not, but you are not bound to automatically give him community supervision if his sentence is 

under ten.”

Jury verdict on punishment

After deliberations, the jury returned the following verdict on punishment: 

VERDICT OF THE JURY

We, the Jury, having found the defendant, Gabino Hernandez-Dominguez, guilty 

of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Family Violence, assess his 

punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division, for a period of 8 (2 to 20 years). In addition, we assess

a fine of $ 0 (0 to 10,000). 

(If the above sentence is 10 years or less, please proceed to consider the next 

paragraph)

We further find that the defendant has never been convicted of a felony in this 

state or in any other state and we recommend that the sentence be suspended and 

the defendant be placed on community supervision:

[completed with signature]_____ 

Presiding Juror
7

[completed with printed name]__________

Printed Name of Presiding Juror

The district court read the jury’s eight-year-imprisonment sentence aloud in open court and 

confirmed with the presiding juror that this was the jury’s verdict. Hernandez-Dominguez 

declined polling the jury. The district court accepted the jury’s verdict, pronounced sentence, 

and signed the judgment of conviction that is challenged in this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Hernandez-Dominguez contends that the jury’s punishment verdict reflects a 

community-supervision recommendation that the district court was required to follow and that 

his judgment of conviction should be modified to reflect that his eight-year sentence was 

“probated.” He states that the presiding juror’s signature on the line immediately after the last 

paragraph of the verdict form indicates the jury’s “agreement with the entire verdict, including 

the sentence recommending probation” because “there is no choice to be made on the verdict 

form beyond the colon.” He further states that because the jury was removed from the 

courtroom—after the district court confirmed that no one wanted a jury poll—the jury did not 

hear the sentencing pronounced in open court and “had no opportunity to learn that [HernandezDominguez]’s prison sentence was not probated as they had recommended.”

Article 42A.055 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which addresses juryrecommended community supervision, requires a trial court to suspend an imposed sentence of 

confinement and place a defendant on community-supervision if a jury’s verdict recommends it:

[a] jury that imposes confinement as punishment for an offense may recommend 

to the judge that the judge suspend the imposition of the sentence and place the 

defendant on community supervision. A judge shall suspend the imposition of the 
8

sentence and place the defendant on community supervision if the jury makes that 

recommendation in the verdict.

A defendant is eligible for community supervision under this article only if:

(1) before the trial begins, the defendant files a written sworn motion with the 

judge that the defendant has not previously been convicted of a felony in this 

or any other state; and

(2) the jury enters in the verdict a finding that the information contained in the 

defendant’s motion is true.

Id. art. 42A.055(a), (b); Mayes v. State, 353 S.W.3d 790, 795-96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“The 

jury does not determine the period of community supervision. It assesses the sentence and 

recommends that the trial judge place the defendant on community supervision. The judge must 

follow that recommendation, but he has the discretion to determine the appropriate period of 

supervision, as long as it is within the minimum and maximum statutory periods.”). HernandezDominguez essentially contends that the district court violated article 42A.055(a) by not granting

community supervision and that the district court created a variance between its oral 

pronouncement of sentence and the jury’s verdict on punishment.

In reviewing Hernandez-Dominguez’s appellate complaint, we are mindful that 

“[a] jury’s lawful verdict on punishment is inviolate, and the trial court must abide by it.” Ette v. 

State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Verdicts should be held good if the jury’s 

intentions can reasonably be ascertained. Ainsworth v. State, 517 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1975); Perez v. State, 21 S.W.3d 628, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.);

see Williams v. State, No. 03-18-00267-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5406, at *38 (Tex. App.—

Austin July 18, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). “Verdicts should 

receive a liberal rather than a strict construction, and if the finding of the jury can be reasonably 
9

ascertained, from whatever source, the verdict should be held valid.” Ainsworth, 517 S.W.2d at

277; Perez, 21 S.W.3d at 631. We may “examine the court’s charge to ascertain the certainty of 

the jury’s intention.” Ainsworth, 517 S.W.2d at 277.

Here, the court’s charge on punishment instructed the jury in Paragraph III that if 

it were to recommend community supervision, it would have to express that recommendation in 

its verdict and make an appropriate finding as to Hernandez-Dominguez’s lack of a prior felony 

conviction:

The defendant in this case has filed an affidavit in terms of law stating that he has 

never been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state. Our law provides 

that where a person is convicted for the offenses contained in Paragraph I as listed 

above, and the jury assesses the punishment at imprisonment in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for any term of years not 

more than 10, and they further find that the defendant has never been convicted of 

a felony in this state or any other state, they may, in their discretion, recommend 

community supervision for the defendant; and in case you decide to recommend 

community supervision for the defendant, let your verdict show that you find that 

the defendant has never been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state,

and further show that you recommend community supervision for the defendant.

(Emphases added.). But if the jury decided against a community-supervision recommendation, 

Paragraph IV of the court’s charge on punishment instructed the jury that no express finding was 

necessary: “If you do not desire to grant community supervision to this defendant, you will say 

nothing in your verdict concerning the same.” Following these instructions, the jury “sa[id]

nothing” in its verdict form as to community supervision, leaving only a blank space in the 

portion for recommending that the court suspend the assessed sentence and place HernandezDominguez on community supervision. See Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601, 609 n.44 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (noting presumption that jury followed trial court’s written instructions in 
10

absence of evidence to contrary); Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006) (same).

When provided with the verdict on punishment, the district court read this in open 

court: “We, the jury, having found the defendant, Gabino Hernandez Dominguez, guilty of 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon family violence assess his punishment at confinement 

in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division for a period of eight years. In 

addition, we assess a fine of $0.” The district court then confirmed with the presiding juror that

this was the jury’s verdict. Hernandez-Dominguez declined the district court’s offer to poll the 

jury, which would have been the proper action to take if he questioned the punishment assessed. 

See Cook v. State, 390 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (noting that no jury poll was 

requested and concluding that jury’s verdict, as confirmed by presiding juror, was legal verdict 

accepted by trial judge); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 37.04 (providing that verdict 

“shall” be entered upon minutes of court where jury states it has agreed on verdict, verdict is read 

aloud in court, verdict is in proper form and no juror dissents therefrom, and neither party 

requests poll of jury), .05 (requiring jury to retire again to consider its verdict if any juror polled 

states that verdict was not his). Additionally, Hernandez-Dominguez raised no objection to the 

imposition of his sentence. 

Given the instructions in the charge, the jury’s verdict following those 

instructions, and the presiding juror’s confirmation that the eight-year-imprisonment sentence

was their verdict, the jury’s intention here “can be reasonably ascertained.” See Ainsworth, 517 

S.W.2d at 277; Perez, 21 S.W.3d at 631; see also Williams, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5406, at *38. 

The jury’s intention to assess Hernandez-Dominguez’s punishment of imprisonment without 
11

community supervision is also supported by other portions of the record, including the attorneys’

closing arguments and the evidence presented during the punishment phase. 

As we have noted, during closing arguments on punishment, defense counsel told 

the jury that if they determined that Hernandez-Dominguez should not have his sentence 

probated, they were not required to assess punishment at more than ten years’ imprisonment, but 

rather, could “give him any term. . . . If you give him four years, you can say we think he should 

serve four years in prison, and we don’t think it should be community supervision. That’s what 

the verdict form shows you in the back.” Defense counsel also pointed out that the jury was 

asked first “to assess a sentence, and then if it’s two to ten years, whether or not it should be 

community supervision or not, but you are not bound to automatically give him community

supervision if his sentence is under ten.” For his part, the prosecutor told the jury that if it were 

to recommend probation, “the only sentence you need to give, the only sentence whatsoever is 

10 years [of community supervision]. Anything less than that is not an [e]ffective enough 

deterrent. Ten years is the maximum sentence.” The jury’s verdict on punishment conforms 

with the suggestions made during these arguments. That is, by giving less than ten years’

imprisonment, the jury could have reasonably indicated that: (1) it understood defense counsel’s 

argument that it was not required to give community supervision for an imprisonment sentence 

of under ten years and (2) it agreed with the prosecutor’s suggestion that anything less than ten 

years’ community supervision was an inadequate deterrent.

Finally, the punishment-phase evidence supports the jury’s rejection of 

community supervision. The jury found Hernandez-Dominguez guilty of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon-family violence, necessarily rejecting his denial that he threatened his 

girlfriend with a knife. The jury heard testimony about his prior assaults against his girlfriend 
12

and listened to a recording of his jail phone call encouraging her to drop the charges against him. 

The jury also had evidence of his prior conviction for resisting arrest. Further, the jury heard 

testimony during punishment about the difficulties of supervising a probationer who has been 

deported, a particular risk for probationers who are not United States citizens and convicted 

felons.

Having considered the jury’s intention expressed in its verdict, with proper 

reference to the instructions provided in the court’s charge, we conclude that there was no 

violation of article 42A.055 and no variance between the district court’s oral pronouncement of 

sentence and the jury’s verdict on punishment. See Ainsworth, 517 S.W.2d at 277; see, e.g., 

Perez, 21 S.W.3d at 631 (concluding that jury intended thirty-year sentence without fine that was 

read in open court, agreed to by jury without jury poll, and reflected in trial court’s judgment).

This jury returned a valid verdict of eight years’ imprisonment without a community-supervision 

recommendation for Hernandez-Dominguez, and the district court accepted that verdict. 

Hernandez-Dominguez’s eight-year-imprisonment sentence was within the proper punishment 

range for his second-degree felony, supported by the evidence, compliant with the jury-charge 

instructions and closing arguments of the attorneys, and confirmed by the presiding juror. 

Moreover, Hernandez-Dominguez declined the district court’s offer to poll the jury, which would 

have been the proper action to take if he questioned the punishment assessed. See Cook, 390 

S.W.3d at 373; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 37.04-.05. The jury’s lawful verdict on 

punishment was imposed by the district court orally and in its judgment of conviction and should 

be accorded finality. See Ette, 559 S.W.3d at 517 (stating that “jury’s lawful verdict on 

punishment is inviolate”); Cook, 390 S.W.3d at 372 (stating that when valid sentence is 

pronounced by trial court, it is generally accorded finality).
13

Accordingly, we overrule Hernandez-Dominguez’s appellate issue.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Affirmed

Filed: August 31, 2020

Do Not Publish