Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00415-CR

Gilberto CARREON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR3963

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 14, 2019

AFFIRMED

A jury convicted appellant Gilberto Carreon of the offense of murder. Based upon the 

jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Carreon to twenty years’ imprisonment. In three 

issues, Carreon contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court improperly found Carreon competent to stand 

trial. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
04-18-00415-CR

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

In the early morning of January 25, 2017, Carreon called 9-1-1 as he was in the act of 

stabbing the complainant multiple times. The complainant was later identified as Jose Reyes 

Garcia via fingerprints. Garcia can be heard screaming and moaning in the background of the 9-

1-1 call recording, which was admitted during trial. During the call, Carreon admitted to the 9-1-

1 operator that “I stabbed him” and that “I don’t know how many times I stabbed him.” When 

instructed by the 9-1-1 operator to not stab Garcia any more, Carreon responds, “Well he shouldn’t 

have put his f[]ing hands on me.” Carreon also told the 9-1-1 operator, “He didn’t listen, so I did 

what I did.”

In response to an emergency tone, San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) Officer Todd 

Johnson, the pilot of the police helicopter, flew to the location and focused the helicopter’s infrared 

camera on the reported scene. Via the camera’s onboard monitor, Officer Johnson viewed 

someone in a wheelchair signaling the helicopter. Officer Johnson also saw a person lying on the 

ground with another person on top. It appeared to Officer Johnson that the person on top was 

striking or stabbing the person lying on the ground. The video recording from the helicopter’s 

infrared camera, which was admitted during trial, indicates the incident took place at 

approximately 1:30 a.m.

San Antonio Fire Department (“SAFD”) firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician 

(“EMT”) Will Rivera arrived at the scene approximately three minutes after the initial 9-1-1 call. 

When Rivera arrived, he initially approached a man in a wheelchair. The man in the wheelchair

looked to where an incident was taking place. Rivera saw one man lying face down on the ground 

with his arms spread out and with second man sitting on the first man’s back. The second man, 

identified as Carreon, was “driving what appeared to be a knife into his back over and over,” which 
04-18-00415-CR

- 3 -

Rivera later quantified as more than three but less than seven times. Rivera noticed Carreon’s face 

was covered in blood, and he described the knife as a folding knife. 

SAPD Officers Christian Castillo and Clint Bush also responded to the scene while the 

incident was in progress. When Officer Castillo arrived and approached, he saw Carreon 

straddling Garcia with a knife in his hand. Officer Castillo drew his sidearm and instructed 

Carreon to drop the knife. Carreon threw the knife to the side and crawled off of Garcia. Officer 

Castillo then handcuffed Carreon, who he described as “pretty calm.”1

 Officer Castillo eventually

arrested Carreon for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The charges against Carreon were 

later upgraded to murder when Garcia died from his wounds.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his first issue, Carreon contends the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support 

his conviction. Carreon specifically states he 

does not dispute and is not arguing that he [is] not the person identified as the person 

that was at the scene and had been stabbing the complainant, rather it is [Carreon]’s 

position that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to prove that he 

committed Murder as specified under [the] Texas Penal Code and that he did not 

have the right for self[-]defense under [the] Texas Penal Code.

 

(emphasis omitted).

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

To prevail on a claim of defense of person with the use of deadly force, a defendant must 

prove: (1) he would have been justified in using force against the other person; and (2) it was 

reasonable to believe that “deadly force [was] immediately necessary [for protection] against the

other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.32(a)(1), 

(2)(A) (West 2011). “[A] person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree 

 1 The video recordings from Officer Castillo’s body-worn camera and his COBAN (dash camera) were admitted into 

evidence.
04-18-00415-CR

- 4 -

the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the 

other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.” Id. at § 9.31(a). 

A person in lawful possession of property is justified in using force against another when 

and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or 

terminate another’s unlawful interference with the property. Id. § 9.41(a). A person, who would 

be justified in using force under section 9.41, is justified in using deadly force against another to 

defend property when and to the degree he reasonably believes deadly force is immediately 

necessary to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing robbery or theft during 

the nighttime from escaping with the property, if he reasonably believes that the property cannot 

be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force to protect the property 

would expose him to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Id. § 9.42.

Once a defendant produces some evidence raising the issue of self-defense, the State bears 

the burden of persuasion to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions were not 

justified. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 

910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). To meet its burden of persuasion, the State is not required to 

produce additional evidence. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, it 

has made an implicit finding against any defensive theory raised by the defendant. Id. at 914.

When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s 

implicit rejection of his self-defense claim, we do not look to whether the State presented evidence 

that refuted defendant’s self-defense evidence. Id. Instead, we determine whether, after viewing 

all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact would have found 

the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against 

defendant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In conducting a legal 

sufficiency review, we defer to the jury’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the 
04-18-00415-CR

- 5 -

weight given to their testimony. Carey v. State, 507 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). 

The jury is free to accept or reject any and all defensive evidence. Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900,

903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. Further, we defer to the jury’s resolution 

of any conflicts in the evidence. See Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

Discussion

The jury was charged that Carreon committed the offense of murder if he intentionally or 

knowingly caused Garcia’s death by cutting or stabbing Garcia with a deadly weapon (a knife) or 

if Carreon, with the intent to cause serious bodily injury to Garcia, committed an act clearly 

dangerous to human life that caused Garcia’s death by cutting or stabbing Garcia with a deadly 

weapon (a knife). The evidence is undisputed that Carreon stabbed Garcia at least twelve times, 

which was an act clearly dangerous to human life, and Garcia died as a result. Officer Bush 

testified the knife recovered from the crime scene was one capable of causing serious bodily injury 

or death. Dr. McClain described eleven stab wounds to Garcia’s back as “rather significant,” and 

noted that some of the wounds passed through vertebrae, entered the spinal canal, and punctured 

the lungs. Dr. McClain also described a stab wound to Garcia’s chest cavity that pierced his heart. 

Accordingly, the evidence establishes every essential element of the offense of murder beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. We next examine whether the jury also could 

have found against Carreon on the self-defense and defense of property issues beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

Carreon points to his own testimony as support for his contention that the jury’s rejection 

of his self-defense or defense of property claims was erroneous. Carreon testified that he 

encountered Garcia in October 2016, when Carreon alleges Garcia disturbed Carreon’s belongings 

and ate his food. Carreon also testified he caught Garcia eating his food in November 2016, and 

Carreon alleged Garcia stole an Army jacket from him that Garcia then sold to another person 
04-18-00415-CR

- 6 -

approximately three weeks before the offense. Carreon also testified Garcia showed him a gun at 

Carreon’s campsite on the same day the jacket was stolen. Carreon testified that at the time of the 

offense, Garcia woke him by hitting him and asked for a cigar. Carreon further testified that when 

he told Garcia he did not have a cigar, Garcia reached over Carreon and grabbed Carreon’s 

backpack. According to Carreon, Garcia told him “I’ll take anything from you. I’ll kill you and 

I’ll go back to Mexico, you wetback.” Carreon testified that when he told Garcia to leave him 

alone, Garcia opened Carreon’s storage bin and reached into the bin as though he was going to 

take things out of it without permission. According to Carreon, Garcia then charged at Carreon

and told Carreon he had a gun. Carreon insisted that he feared for his life and testified that he then 

pulled out his knife and stabbed at Garcia several times. Carreon further testified that he and 

Garcia began wrestling and Garcia fell down face first. Carreon ended up on Garcia’s back and 

continued stabbing Garcia in what Carreon characterized as self-defense. Carreon admitted that 

when Garcia charged at him, Garcia had nothing in his hands.

After viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude

that a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. We further conclude, that a rational jury could 

have found against Carreon on the self-defense and defense of property issues beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id.

Carreon’s first issue is overruled.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In his second issue, Carreon contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move 

for a directed verdict and for failing to obtain an investigator. 
04-18-00415-CR

- 7 -

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Carreon must establish both that 

his trial counsel performed deficiently and that the deficiency prejudiced him. See State v. 

Morales, 253 S.W.3d 686, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687 (1984)). With respect to the first prong, the record on appeal must be sufficiently 

developed to overcome the strong presumption of reasonable assistance. See Thompson v. State, 

9 S.W.3d 808, 813–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Absent an opportunity for trial counsel to explain 

his actions, we will not conclude his representation was deficient “unless the [challenged] conduct 

was so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” See Garcia v. State, 57 

S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Texas procedure makes it “virtually impossible” for 

appellate counsel to present an adequate ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct 

review. See Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 423 (2013). This is because the inherent nature of 

most ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims means that the trial court record “will often fail 

to ‘contai[n] the information necessary to substantiate’ the claim.” Id. at 424 (quoting Ex parte 

Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc)). Consequently, the better 

procedural mechanism for pursuing a claim of ineffective assistance is almost always through writ 

of habeas corpus proceedings. Freeman v. State, 125 S.W.3d 505, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Discussion

The record in this case does not indicate why trial counsel did not move for a directed 

verdict at the close of the guilt/innocence stage. Without evidence providing trial counsel’s 

explanation as to why counsel did not move for a directed verdict, we cannot conclude that not 

presenting such a motion was not reasonable assistance. See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813–14. 

Moreover, a motion for a directed verdict would only have been required if there was insufficient 

evidence. See Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). As we have already 
04-18-00415-CR

- 8 -

determined above that there was sufficient evidence, counsel was not compelled to make such a 

motion. Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (counsel is not required 

to engage in the filing of futile motions).

Additionally, we determine that Carreon’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to obtain an investigator is likewise without merit. Carreon argues an investigator should 

have been obtained to locate a witness to the offense. However, the record before us provides no 

explanation for trial counsel’s decision not to obtain an investigator for the purpose of locating a 

witness to the offense. Further, an appellant may base an ineffective assistance claim on counsel’s 

failure to present a witness only if the appellant can show that the witness was available and his 

testimony would have benefitted the appellant. Ross v. State, 802 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1990, no pet.). Here, Carreon has not shown that the witness’s testimony would have 

changed the outcome of the trial. Thus, upon review of the totality of the circumstances, we 

conclude Carreon has failed to demonstrate that trial counsel’s actions amounted to ineffective 

assistance of counsel.

Carreon’s second issue is overruled.

COMPETENCY HEARING

In his third issue, Carreon contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for 

competency evaluation without first questioning Carreon whether he agreed with counsel’s 

statement that counsel had no evidence of incompetency.

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

Incompetency to stand trial is shown if a person does not have: “(1) sufficient present 

ability to consult with [her] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a 

rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [her].” TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 46B.003(a). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has noted that mental illness, by 
04-18-00415-CR

- 9 -

itself, does not equate to incompetence to stand trial. Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 691 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013). The inquiry is whether the defendant’s mental illness “operates in such a way 

as to prevent him from rationally understanding the proceedings against him or engaging rationally

with counsel in the pursuit of his own best interests.” Id. A defendant must show his mental illness 

“prevents him from rationally understanding the proceedings against him or engaging rationally 

with counsel” to support a finding of incompetency. Id. “Evidence that raises this possibility 

necessitates an informal inquiry ... .” Id.

Procedurally, a trial court employs two steps in making competency determinations. “The 

first step is an informal inquiry; the second step is a formal competency trial.” Boyett v. State, 545 

S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “An informal inquiry is called for upon a ‘suggestion’ 

from any credible source that the defendant may be incompetent.” Id.; see TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 46B.004(a), (c), (c-1). During the informal inquiry, there must be “some evidence from 

any source that would support a finding that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial.” 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.004(c). “If that requirement is met, the trial court must 

order a psychiatric or psychological competency examination, and, except for certain exceptions, 

must hold a formal competency trial.” Boyett, 545 S.W.3d at 563; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. arts. 46B.005(a), (b), 46B.021(b).

We review issues involving competency determinations for an abuse of discretion. 

Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), superseded by statute, TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.004(c-1). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial 

court; instead, we determine whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable.

Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 426.
04-18-00415-CR

- 10 -

Discussion

In this case, the trial court conducted the first step in the process by conducting an informal 

inquiry into Carreon’s competency following trial counsel’s filing of a motion requesting a 

competency evaluation. In the motion, counsel states “[t]here is an issue in this cause regarding 

whether [Carreon] is ‘competent’ to stand trial ... .” During a pretrial hearing addressing the 

motion for competency evaluation, counsel stated:

Your Honor, as to the competency, when we were in court discussing he was 

diagnosed — or he told me his diagnosis was schizophrenia, [that he] was receiving 

treatment through the Center for Health Care Services for at least schizophrenia, 

[and] I believe one other mental health condition. And so based on that[,] and based 

on what he told me happened at the time of the offense which made me file [a] 

motion for insanity[,] I wish to have him evaluated for his competency.

The trial court acknowledged counsel’s assertion of a mental illness diagnosis and questioned “but 

is there anything to indicate [to] you on that he’s having problems understanding the proceedings 

against him or communicating with you effectively?” Counsel responded in the negative. The 

trial court then noted: “If he’s not having one of those issues, you can be mentally ill but competent. 

I don’t see a competency issue there.” The trial court asked counsel whether he had any further 

evidence regarding the competency issue. Counsel did not, and the trial court denied the 

competency evaluation.

The record before us does not provide any evidence that would support a finding that 

Carreon was incompetent to stand trial at the time the trial court conducted the informal inquiry 

into Carreon’s competency. To the extent Carreon contends the trial court was required to ask him 

specifically whether he agreed with counsel’s evaluation that Carreon did not have problems 

understanding the proceedings against him or communicating with counsel effectively, Carreon 
04-18-00415-CR

- 11 -

has provided no authority and we have found none, to support this contention. Accordingly, we 

cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering a competency evaluation.

Issue three is overruled.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Irene Rios, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH