i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 22 5- CR Robert Ver

non HU DL EY , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 81st J udicial District Court, Kar nes County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 08 -0 7- 00 08 2- CRK Honora ble Ron Carr, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 3, 2010 AFF I RMED A j ur y c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt, Rob e rt Ve rn on Hu dle y , of a ssa

ult on a pu

bli c se rv ant. In a

sin g le issue on appea l, Hudley

contends ther e wa s evidenc e at tria l that he was guilty only of the lesse rincluded off

ense of assault, and there fore , the trial court err ed by ref using to include his requeste d instruction on the lesser- included off ense in the jury

char g e. We a ff

i rm the judg ment of the trial court.04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Serg eant James T an n er , a c o rr ec t i o n al o ff i ce r e mp l o y edb y

th e T ex as De p art m ent of Crim inal Justi c e (T DC J) at th e Conna lly Un it, te sti fi e d th a t on

the mor nin g of Janu ary 14 , 2 00 8, he w a s in
un if or m and pe rf or min g his duty

of br ing ingSe c tio n 2 inm a te s of f the re c re a tio n y ard

and ba c k into the ir c e lls . H e no tic e d H ud le y , a Se c tio n 3 inm a te , atte mpt to e nte r w iththe Sec tio n 2 inm a te s. Tanne r tes t i fi ed that Hudley was “ out of place ,” and le t Hudley know that he would e ither send H u d l e y b a c k

t o t h e r e c r e a t i o nyar d

t o w a i tw i thth e o th e r S e c t i o n3 i n m a t e s , o r w r i t e H u d l e y a disciplinary

repor t for beingout of pl ace . Tanne r then a sked Hudley for his identification. Hudley
re fu se d to pr e se nt h is ide nti fi c a tio n, wh ic h Ta nn e r sa w wa s in his ri g ht ha

nd
. Ta nn e r he ld out hi s hand as if to sa

y , “g ive it to me,” and Hudley pushed his hand aw ay and struck T anner

on the rig ht side of the fac e. Tanne r attempted to pla ce H udley ag ainst the wall. Hudley hit Tanner a

fewmore times and Tanner s t ru ck Hudl ey three times with a closed fist in an attempt to def end himself. Correc tional Office r R aul Guerra then sprayed both men wit h tear g as and br oke up the f

ight. Gue rra testified that he witnesse d Hudley slap Tanne r’s arm awa

y and then punch Tanne r in the fa ce. T he only thing Gu e r

r a h e a r d w a s T a nn e r reque sting Hudle y ’s identification. Further testimony

evidenc ed that all inmates have identification ca rds which they

are require d to car

ry with them wheneve r they
are outside their ce lls. TDCJ staff can demand an inm ate’ s identification at any time and inmates can be disciplined for re fusing to present their identification ca

rds. Severa l inmates observe d the alter cation an d t es t i fied on Hudle y ’s beha lf. The f irst four inmates could not hea

r the words, if any , exchang ed betwe en Ta nner a nd Hudley

beca use they wer e in their ce lls at the time the fig ht occur red. Car ry Tucke r stated tha t h e witnessed T anner g rab Hudley and then swingat him as he attempted to p u l l aw ay . T ucker was sure Tanne r swungat04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

- 3- Hudley first. Robert Jackson testified that he sa w Tanne r re ach f

or Hudley in an ag g ressive ma

nner and swingat hi m. Hudley then swungback a

nd the two men fought until s prayed by Guer ra. G ary King stated that he w itnessed Tanner gra b for Hudley ; when Hudley pulled back, T anner swungat him. Hudley

and Ta nner f oug ht until Guerra spr ay ed them. Raul Rey es testified in a manner simil ar to the other inmates. Jim my Gre en wa s the only inmate to hear what occ urre d during the alter cation. He wa s with Hudley

when they

attempted to enter

with the Section 2 inmates. He stated that Tanne r demande d Hudley ’s identification and Hudley ref used. At that time, Tanne r re ache d to gr ab Hudley and hit Hudley

in the fac e. Gr een a dmitted that he and Hudley wer e out of plac e. After b o t h sides rested a nd closed, the tria l court pre sented its proposed c harg e, which inc lud e d a

n in str uc tio n on sel f- de fe ns e . Hu dle y re ite ra te d his obj e c tio ns to the c ourt ’s de nia l of h is
re qu e st f or an in str uct io n on the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of a ssa ult and the de fi nit ion

of “ lawf ull y discharg ing a

n officia l duty .” The court ove rruled the objections. The jury convicted H udley

of assault on a public se rvant. Hudle y timely appea led. S TA N D A R D O F RE VI E W AND A PP LI C A BLE L AW We reviewthe trial cour

t’s decision re g arding inclusion of a lesser -included of fense in the jury char g e for

abuse of discretion. Br oc k

v . S tate , 29 5 S. W .3 d 45 , 49 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t Dist.] 2009, pet. re f’d) (citing J ac k so n v . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The Court o f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s h as art i cu l at edth e t wo -p ro n g Aguilar/Rousseau t es tt o d eter mine whether a def endant is entitled to a lesse r-include d offe nse instruction in the jury char g e. R. Ha ll v . S

tate , 1 5 8 S
. W
. 3 d

4 7 0 , 4 7 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Aguil ar v . S tate , 6 8 2 S. W. 2 d

5 5 6 , 5 5 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1985) and Ro us se au v . S tate , 8 55 S.W. 2d 66 6, 67 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 )) . T his te st require s (1) that the le sser off ense must actua lly be a lesser- included offense of the cha rg ed off ense,04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

- 4- a s d e fi ne d by art ic le 37 .0 9 of the Cod e of Cr imi na l Proc e dure , an d (2) that the re c or d mu st c on ta in some evidenc e that per

mits a rational jury

to find that the d ef

en d an t i s g uilty

only of the lesser- included off

ense. Id. ; A. Ha ll v . S

tate , 225 S.W .3d 524, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Applying the Aguilar/Rousseau test to the off enses of assault on a public se rvant a nd misdemeanor a ssault, the test require s that “ther e must be some evidenc e from which a rational jury could ac quit the defe ndant of the g rea t er offe nse while c onvicting him of the lesser- included offe nse.” R. Ha ll , 158 S.W .3d at 473. The e vidence must d emonstrate that the lesser- included offe nse is a “valid, rational alternative to t h e c h ar ged o ff ense.” A. Ha ll , 2 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d a t5 3 6
. In deter mini n g wh et h er

t h e i n s t ru ct i o no nth e l es s er -i n cl u d edo ff en s e i s ap p ro p ri at e, the re viewing court “eva luates th e ev i d en ce i n the context of the entire r ecor d, but does not consider whether the evidenc e is c redible, controve rted, or in c onflict with other evide nce.” R. Ha ll , 158 S.W .3d at 473. “Any thing more than a sc i n t i l l a o f evide nce ma y be suff icient to entitle a def

endant to a le sser char g e.” A. Ha ll , 225 S.W .3d at 536. When a trial court err oneously ref uses a pr operly

reque sted instruction on a lesser -included of fense , such that the jury ’s only option is t o convi ct o r acquit on the main cha

rg e, a f inding of harm is automatic, Ro ba lin v . S tate , 2 2 4 S.W.3d 4 7 0 , 4 7 7 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.), beca use the jury was denied the opportunity to c onvict the defe ndant of the le sser off ense. Brock, 29 5 S.W. 3d at 4 9; se e Ra yv . S tate , 106 S.W .3d 299, 303 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n[ 1 s tDi s t
. ] 2 0 0 3 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Sa un de rs v . S tate , 9 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 6 4 , 5 7 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1995)).04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

1 ... A p e rs o n c o m m its as sa u lt if h e inte n tio n a lly, k n o w ing ly, o r re c k le ssly c a u se s b o d ily inj u ry to a n o the r. T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 2 2 .0 1 (a )( 1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )
. S u c h a n o ff e n se is a C la ss A m isd e m e a n o r. Id

. at § 22. 01( b) (V ernon S up p . 20 0 9 ). T he o f f ense b eco m es ass aul t o n a p ub l i c ser vant and i s a f el o ny o f t he t hi rd d egree i f , i n ad d i t i o n, i t i s co m m i t t ed , as al l eged i n t he i nd i ct m ent i n t hi s case, agai nst a p ers o n t he act o r kno ws i s a p ub l i c ser vant whi l e t he p u b lic se rv a n t i s la w fully d isc h a rg ing a n o ff ic ia l d u ty. I

d. at § 2 2
. 0 1 (b)(1). T he act o r i s p res um ed t o have kno wn t he p ers o n ass aul t ed was a pub l i c ser vant i f , as here, the p ers o n ass aul t ed was weari ng a dis t i nct i ve uni f o rm o r bad ge ind ic a ting e m p lo ym e n t as a p u b lic se rv a n t. I d. at § 2 2
. 0 1 (d) (V ernon S up p . 20 0 9 ).

- 5- D I S CUS S I ON The parties a g ree that assault is a lesser -included of fense of assa

ult on a public serva

nt. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.01(a) (1), (b)( 1) (Ve rnon S u p p . 2009). 1 Thus, the first prongof the Aguilar/Rousseau test is met as a matter of law. Se e R. Ha ll , 158 S.W .3d at 473. We next determine whether there was some evidenc e pre sented at trial from which a rational jury

could find that Hudley
w a s g u i l t y only of assault, not a ssault on a public serva nt. To be entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser- included off

ense of misdemeanor assault, the re cord must contain some “ aff irmative evide nce . . . that neg ates one of the four additional elements of a ssault on a public servant , y et admits the underlying a ssault.” Id. at 474. We evaluate the e n t i re rec ord without consideringwhether “the evidenc e is cre dible, controve rted, or in c onflict with other evide nce.” Id. a t 47 3; se e A. Ha ll , 225 S
. W
. 3 d at 536 (stating that any thing more than a scintilla ma y suffice to e ntitle a defe ndant to a le sse r c ha rg e ); se e als o M

c Kin ne yv . S tate , 207 S.W .3d 366, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ I f
. . . fa c ts a re e lic ite d d

ur ingtr ia l th a t r a ise an is su e of th e le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e , a nd the c ha rg e is proper ly reque sted, then a c harg e must be g iven.”)
. Hu dle y c la ims tha

t he pr e se nte d e vid e nc e a ff ir mativ e ly ne g a tin g the la st e le me nt o f a ssa ult
on a pu bli c ser van t—t

hat Se rg e ant T ann e r w a s “ lawf ull y ” dis c ha

rg ingan o ff

ic ia l duty a t th e tim e of the a ssault. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.01(b)( 1). Specific ally , Hudley asser ts he offe red some evidenc e that Ta

nner a c te d u n la w f u ll y b y s trikingHudley

first without provocation, and T anner04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

2 ... “ A n of

f i cer o r empl oy ee of

a c orr ect i onal f

aci l i t y i s j us t i f

i ed i n u s i ng f

orce ag ai ns t a per s on i n c us t od y wh en and t o t he d egree t he o f f i cer or em p l o y ee reasonab l y be l i eves t he f o rce i s necessar y t o m ain t ai n t he securi t y of t he corr ect i onal f

aci l i t y , t he s af

et y or s ecu r i t y of

ot her per s ons i n c us t od y or emp l oy ed by t he corr ect i onal f aci l i t y , or hi s own s af et y or s ecu r i t y . ” T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 9
. 5 3 (V erno n 2 0 0 3 ). T he t ri al co urt ap p rop ri at el y i ncl ud ed a jur y ins tru c tio n o n se c tio n 9 .5 3
.

- 6- there fore acte d outside the lawful pe rfor mance of hi s officia l duties. To determine whether a
corr ectional of

fice r was law fully

discharg ing his off

icial duties, we look to sec tion 9.53 of the Penal Code, which provide s that a cor rec tional office r is justified in using r ea s o n ab l e forc e ag ainst an inm a te to m a int a in t

he of fi c e r’ s o wn

sa fe ty , th e saf

ety of ot he rs , o r t

he se c ur ity

of the pr iso n a s a whole. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9.53 (Ve rnon 2003). 2 Ac c or din g ly , if a c or re c tio na l of

fi c e r’ s u se of fo rc e fa lls wi thi n the se pa ra me te rs , he is lawf

ull y dis c ha

rg inghis of

fi c ia l dutie s, and

an inmate who assaults the off

icer at t his tim e is g uilty

of assa ult on a public serva

nt rather than mere misdemeanor a ssault. R. Ha ll , 158 S.W .3d at 474. To be e ntitled to a less er -included instruc tion
on mis de me ano r a ssa

ult , th e re mus t be so me e vid e nc e in t he reco rd, fr om a

ny so ur c e , th a t w ou ld show that the off

icer was c riminally

or tortiously

abusin g h i s s t at u s as a public se rvant by using
un jus tif ie d f or c e or e ng a g ing in of

fi c ia l oppr e ssi on or c ivi l rig hts vio latio ns a t the tim e of the a ssa ult
. Id. at 474-75. Her e, Hudley

relies on the testimony of inmates Tucke r, J ackson, King , Rey es, and G ree n, who all stated that Ta

nner struc k Hudley

first without provocatio n . On l y Green hea rd the wor ds exchang ed betwe en Hudley and Of fice r Tanne r; Gre en st ated that he and H udley wer e “out of

place ,” Tanne r orde red H udley

to present h i s i dentification, and Hudley ref used bef ore Ta nner struc k Hudley
. Takingsuch testimony by the def ense w itnesses at fa ce va lue, there is stil l no evidence that
a c omm and

wa s not g iven by Offic er Tanner and refused by Hudley befor e Hudley was struck. As noted, su pra , there are instances whe re a corr ectional office r is justified in using re asonable forc e04
- 09
- 00 22 5- CR

- 7- to ma intain se curity as part of the lawful discharg e of his off icial duties. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9 .5 3; se e als o R . H

all , 158 S.W .3d at 475-76 (inmate’s ref usal to obe y

leg itimate order by

office r justified office r’s pushing of inmate to maintain his own and others’ safe ty , and ther efor e off icer was actingwithin scope of his lawf ul duties). Her e, ther e is no dispute that the location of the assault was a prison, and O ffice r Tanne r wa s in uniform, on duty , and eng ag ed in moving inmates inside from the re cre ati o n y ar d . Moreove r, there is evidence that Hudley was “ out of place ” and T anner g ave Hudley a command to pr esent his identification, which Hudley ref used t o obey , befor e any

phy sical
c on ta c t oc c ur

re d. On thi s r e c or d, the re is n o ev ide nc e that Ser g e ant Tann e r cr imi na lly or tor tio us ly abused his status as a public serva nt by using unjusti fied force at t he time of the phy sical alter cation, and ther efor e he w as lawf ully discharg ing his officia l duties. Acc ording ly , there is no evidence that Hu dle y wa s on ly g uilty of the lesse r-include d offe nse of assault. Ther efor e, the se cond prongof the Aguilar/Rousseau te st w a s n ot s a tis fi e d, and Hu dle y wa s n ot e nti tle d to a

le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e instruction. A. Ha ll , 225 S.W .3d at 535. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med. Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH