i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 06 -0 03 66 -C R Ric ard o Ra

mos AG UILAR , Appellant
v. THE S TATE O F TEXAS , Appellee F ro m th e 38 1s t Judi c ia l D ist ri c t Co ur t, S tarr County , T e xas Trial Court No. 05-CR-203 Honora ble J ohn A. Pope, I I I , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 29, 2009 AFF I RMED Def endant, Rica

rdo Ramos Ag uilar, wa s convicted of capital murde r and se ntence d to life imp ri so nme nt. On

a pp e a l, d e fe nd ant a sse rt s (1 ) the e vid e nc e is le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o
su pp or t th e jur y ’s ve rd ic t, a

nd (2 ) h e re c e ive d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of tr ia l c ouns e l. We a ff

ir m. BACK GR OUND On Februa

ry 17, 1996, defe ndant participated i n the abduction of J essie R ay Warren, J r. fr om Warren’ s home in Starr C ounty , Texas. A few wee ks afte r W arr en’s kidnapping his rema ins were04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 2- fo un d in a sh a llo w g ra

ve in M e xico . Warr e n w a s k idn aped and su bs e qu e ntl y

mur de re d b e c a

us e defe ndant and his assoc iates believed he was responsible for the theft of 1300 pounds of defe ndant’s marijuana
. Def endant wa s storing 1300 pounds of mariju an a at Ub aldo Diaz ’s ra nch. When it was d i s co vere d the marijuana was missing, D iaz learne d that Warren a nd J immy

Newma n wer e
re sp on sib le
. De fe nd ant, Di a z, and se ve ra l of

the ir a sso c ia te s me t a t D ia z’s ra nc h to dis c us s a

c ours e of ac tion r eg arding the missing marijuana
. At the end of the meeting , the g roup decide d they wer e “g oing to g o g et the people that got the ma rijuana.” They

made a plan to wait until dark and the n g o p ic k u p N e wm an a

nd War re n a nd g e t th e mari

jua na back
. Aft er de fe nd ant, Di a z, and the ir
a sso c ia te s le ft

the ra nc h, the y sto pp e d at a

c ountr y sto re so that Di a z co uld

make a te le ph on e c a ll. At the store, the g roup en counter ed Ne wman’s br other-in- law Edua rdo Ac evedo. T he g roup abducte d Ace vedo and f

orce d him to take them to Newman’ s house. The g roup invade d Newma n’s h o u s e, b u t n o one wa s home. At defe ndant’s urg ing, the g roup dec ided to move on to Warren’ s ho us e . De fe nd ant tol d Di a z “ so me bo dy be tte r be a t [War re n’ s] ho us e . . . if

no t [y ou are ] g oin g to take the bullet.” When the g roup ar

rived at War

ren’ s house, Warre n beg an shooting at them from the f ront of th e h o u s e . D ia z dr o v e h is v e h ic le thr o u g h th e g ar a g e d o o r an d e n te r e d th e h o u s e from behind. Warren w as shot in the leg , disarmed, a nd forc ibly remove d from the house. As W arr en wa s drag g ed from his house, he clung to a pole on his f ront porch. Def

endant, wanting Warren to r elea se the pole, shot him in the back. Warren relea sed t he pole and defenda nt order ed that Warren be t ied up and pu t in his a sso c ia te ’s ve hic le . Wh e n h is a sso c ia te re fu se d, de fe nd ant tol d him : “ I f y ou do n’ t put hi m04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 3- on y our t ru c k, I ’m g oin g to k ill y ou a lso .” War re n wa s put i n th e ve hic le and dr ive n a wa y fr om h is house. De fenda

nt was not in the vehicle that drove Warr en aw ay from his house. On Marc h 1, 1996, Warren’ s rema ins wer e found in a shallow g rave in Mexi co. W arr en’s body was partially burned and decomposition showed that he had be en dea d for se vera l weeks. The autopsy reve aled that the c ause of

death wa s a close- rang e shotg un wound to the left side of the bac k. A wee k afte r Warre n’s body was found, the investigation lead police to a se cond cr ime scene in Starr County , Texas. The sec ond crime sc ene was a burned area of land that wa s identified as the loc ation wher e Warre n was murde red a nd his body

was burne d. I n J anuar y 2005, defe ndant was indicte d for the c apital murder of Warre n. A j ury

found defe ndant g uilty

and sente nced him to life imprisonment. This appea l ensued. LEGAL AND F ACTUAL SUF F ICIENCY De fe nd ant a sse rt s th e e vid e nc e is b oth le g a lly and factua lly

ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for c apital murder. More specific ally , he conte nds the evidenc e wa s insufficient to show he wa s a s a

pa rt y to War re n’ s mur de r be c a

us e War re n wa s a liv e wh e n h e wa s d ri ve n a wa y fr om h is house, and de fenda

nt was not prese nt when Warre n was murde red. We disag ree . We reviewthe suffic iency of the e vidence under the ap p ro p ri ate standa rds of re view. See J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 27 89 (1 97 9) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); De wbe rry

v . S tat e , 4 S.W .3d 73 5, 74 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) ( same ); W ats on v . S tat e , 20 4 S.W. 3d 40 4, 41 4- 15 (Tex . Crim
. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y ); Cle wis v . S

tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 129 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1996) (s a me ). Th e sta

nd ard of re view is th e same in b oth dir e c t and

c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e c a se s. Kut zn e r v . S tat e , 994 S.W .2d 180, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 4- A per son commits the offense of ca pital murder if he intentionally or knowing ly cause s the death of an individual while c ommitt ing c erta in offense s, including kidna pping. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1 9
. 0 3 (a )( 2 ) ( Ve rn o n2 0 0 3 ). De fe n d an t co n ce d es h i s i n v o l v em en ti nW arre n ’s k i dn ap p i n g; h o we v er, on a

ppeal, he contends Warr en wa s alive whe n he wa s driven aw ay and ther e is no evidenc e of his pre sence when Warr en wa s killed. W hile there is no evi d en ce of def endant’ s prese nce at the Starr County crime sc ene w ere it was deter mined Warren w as murder ed, under the law o f p art ie s, “ [a] p e rs on is cri mi nal ly

re sp on sib le a s a

pa rt y to a n o ff e ns e if the of fe ns e is committed .
. . by

the conduc t of another

for whic h he is criminally responsible.” Id . § 7.01(a) . “A pe rs on is c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le fo r an of

fe ns e c omm itt e d by the c on du c t of an oth e r if
. . . a c tin g wi th intent to promote or assist the commission of the offe nse, he solicits, enc ourag es, d i re cts, aids, or attempts to aid the other pe rson to commit the offense .” Id. § 7.02(a) (2). The State may use direc t or circ umstantial evidence to prove the defe ndant’s responsibili ty as a pa rty to the offe nse. Ri v e ra
v . S tat e , 12 S.W .3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). I n consideringwhether the defe ndant participated as a party , the cour t may look to events that occ urre d befor e, during , or af ter the offe nse wa s committed. Liv e ly v . S tat e , 940 S.W .2d 380, 383 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997), aff’d , 968 S.W .2d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). To convict de fenda

nt of ca pital mur der as a party under Pena l Code section 7.02(a )(2) , the State had to prove that the def endant ha rbore d the spec ific intent to promote or a ssist t he commission of an intentional murde r. Lawton v . S tat e , 913 S.W .2d 542, 555 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1995), c e rt. denied , 5 1 9 U
. S. 8 2 6 ( 1 9 96), o ve r r uled on other grounds , Mo sle yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 249, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
. Testimony showed that defe ndant par ticipated in the dec ision to seek out04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 5- Warren f or stealinghis drug s, and that def endant thre atene d to kill hi s associate s if they did not comply with his order s reg ardingWarren. T estimony also reve aled that many

of the a ssailants had g uns, and def

endant admits he shot Warr en in the back dur ing the kidnapping . I ntent to kill m ay be inferr ed fr om use of a de adly wea pon. Flan ag

an v . S tat e , 675 S.W .2d 734, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). A fir ear

m i s a d ea d l y

wea pon pe r se . Id. ; T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (17) ( Ver non 20 03 ). Ev e n if de fe nd ant wa s no t pr e se nt w he n Warr e n w a s murd e re d, he is c ri min a lly re sp on sib le for the murder as his a ctions showed an “intent to pr omote or assist the commission of the offe nse” by aiding in its commi ssion. Id. § 7 .0 2( a )( 2) . A ft e r a re vie w o f t

he re c or d, we ho ld t

he re is l e g a lly and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence to support the jury ’s ver dict.

IN EF F EC TIV E A SSIST AN CE OF CO UN SEL I n his se cond issue on appea l, de fenda nt c ontends trial counsel provided in ef fective assistance beca

use he ( 1) fa iled to object to Age n t Gr egorski’s inadmissi ble testimony and (2) sti pu la te d to the fa c t th a t the re ma ins fo un d a t the “ ho mic ide sc e ne ” in S tarr County we re War

re n’ s. Def endant arg ues t rial counsel’s assistance was deficient because the t err itorial jurisdiction of the Sta t e could not have be en esta blished but for counse l’s failure to object to Ag ent Gre g orski’s testimony and his stipulation reg ardingthe identity of the re mains. We review de fe n d a nt’ s c o mp laint under the well-e stablished standard set forth in Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). At tr ia l, F .B .I . A g e nt C ha rl e s Ch ri sto ph e r G re g or sk i te sti fi e d a s to the loc a tio n o f t he c ri me
sc e ne in M e xico wh e re War re n’ s re ma ins we re fo un d in a sh a llo w g ra ve . H e a lso te sti fi e d th a t in the c ours e of the inv e sti g a tio n he dis c ov e re d a sec on d c ri me sc e ne in S tarr Cou nty , T e xas w he re it was be lieved Warre n was murde red and burned prior to be ing place d in the shallow g rave acr oss the04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 6- border in Mex ico. He te stified that “one of the subjects in the investigation took us t o that site and identified it as th e l o ca tion where the homicide occ urre d.” Ag ent Gre g orski authenticated photogr aphs of the char

red area and they wer e admitt ed int o evidenc e. He a lso identified the shotg un shells that wer e found at t he homi cide scene in Starr County . When Ag ent Gre g orski beg an to testify about the for ensic e vidence found at the se con d cr i m e s ce ne in Starr County , defe nse counse l interrupted and stipulated to the fac t that the rema ins found at both crime sc enes, the shallow g rave in Mex ico and the c harr ed ar ea in Starr County , belong ed to Warre n. Def endant argues on appea l that if trial counse l had objecte d to Ag ent Gr eg orski’s testimony and withheld his stipulation
re g ard ingthe ide nti ty

of the re ma ins fo un d in Sta rr County , the State wo uld no t have be e n a ble to establish territoria l jurisdiction over this case. Texas has terr itorial jurisdiction over “a n offe nse that a pe rson commits by his own conduct
or the c on du c t of ano the r f

or wh ic h h e is c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le if

: ( 1) e ith e r t

he c on du c t or

a re su lt that is an eleme nt of the off ense oc curs inside this state . . . .” T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.04(a) (1) (Ve rnon 2003). Kidna

pping is c onduct constitutin g an element of the offe nse of c apital murder be c a us e the State is re qu ir e d to p ro ve the mur de r o c c ur re d in the c ours e of

a kid na pp ingto e le vate the offe nse fr om murder to ca pital murder. Se e Ro dr igu e z v . S tat e , 1 46 S.W. 3d

67 4, 67 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2 0 0 4 ) (declar ing kidna pping c onduct that is an ele ment of the off ense of capital murde r). There fore , beca

use the kidnappingoccur

red in Starr

County , Texas, Texas had territoria l jurisdiction over this offe nse. Ac c or din g ly , tr ia l c ouns e l’s fai lu re to o bje c t to Ag e nt G re g or sk i’ s te sti mony and his sti pu la tio n a s to the ide nti ty of the rem ain s in S tarr C ounty did no t e ff e c t th e State ’s burd e n to04

- 06

- 00 36 6- CR

- 7- e s ta b li s h te r r it o r ia l ju r is d ic ti o n . B e c a

u s e th e a c ti o n s d e f

e n d an t c o mp la in s o f w o uld not have chang ed the r esult of the proc eedingwe do not b el i ev e trial counsel’s ac tions constitut e def icient repr esentation. CONCLUSION We o ve rr ule de fe nd ant’ s is su e s o n a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH