### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 63 -C R

______________________________ DEMETRI CK CORTEZ CHRI STI AN, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 188th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 36,010-A

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Carte rThe indi ct m ent and plea dings in his first trial (e nding in mistrial) re fer to Demetric k 1 Chr ist ia n, wh ile a ll the ple a din g s in the se c on d tr ia l be fo re us re fe r t o D e me c trick Christian. Colbert' s v er s i o n of the story is corrobor ated by

Christian's a

nd Santos' e mploy er, Tr oy 2 Morg an. 2 O P I N I O N Demetr ick Cortez Christi an appea ls from the denia l of a motion to q u as h an indictment 1 alleg ing he committed mur der in the course of delivering a controlled substance. Section 1.03 of the Texas Penal Code states that Titles 1 throug h 3 of the Code a pply to offense s defined by

other laws. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.03 (Ve rnon 2003). I n his sole argument on appeal , C h ri s tian contends this Section impliedly bars the use of a violation of a drug offe nse i n the Texas Hea lth and Safety Code as the felony require d to prove a

n element of

murder. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(b)( 3) (Ve rnon 2003) (commonly called felony murder)

. We disa g ree and aff irm the trial court' s decision deny ing the motion to quash. I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY A. A D r ug D e al G one Bad Christian admitted to brokering a cr ack c ocaine deal be tween de aler Br andon May field and Pedro Santos. He br ough t t h e deale r to Santos' house to complete deliver y of the c rac k coca ine. Acc ording to Christi an, S antos' g irlfriend, Mary Colbert, opened the door and invited the me n inside. Colbert testified s he was walking out of t he front door on her way to work whe n two men wea ring bandanna s over their

fac es ca me up behind her

with a g un and told her to step ba ck inside. 23

Acc ording to Christi an, Santos ref used to pay

afte r May field deliver ed the c rac k coca ine. Th is l e d M a y fi e ld t o b e a t Santo s ov e r the he a d s e ve ra l ti me s w itha Gl oc k 4 0, wh ile Chr ist ian h e ld a g un to Colbert's side to ke ep her at bay . During the bloody beating , which re sulted in a " pool of blood" c umu l at i n g on the bathroom floor , the g un fell to the g round. May field picke d the g un up

a nd c oc ke d it . F e a ri ng fo r h is l if e , Sa nto s st ru g g le d w ithMa

y fi e ld f or c on tr ol of

the g un . A mid st the melee , May field wa s shot, and he promptly fled Santos' home with Christian in tow. Severa l L ong view police of fice rs wer e dispatche d to the scene . They observe d Santos standing on his porch in a pool of blood with a blood-soa ked towel on his hea d. Although Santos was quickly

transporte d to the emer g ency room, his brain hemorrha g ed and he died as a result of the blunt-forc e injury

. B. P roce dural Hi story Christian was indicted under sever al counts and c onvicted only on the cha

rg e that he: did then and ther e intentionally or knowing ly

commit or attempt to commit an act clea rly dang erous to human l i fe , t o -wit: beat Pedro Santos with a f irea rm, that c a us e d th e de a th o f Ped

ro Sa nto s, a nd the de fe nd a nt wa s the n an d the re in t he c ours e of intentionally

or knowing ly

committing a felony , to-wit: delivery of a c ontrolled substance, and t he death of P edro Santos was caused while the def endant wa s in the course of and in fur

thera nce of the commission or attempt of said fe lony

. Christian filed a motion to quash this indictment, alleg ing that this parag raph w as " defe ctive in that it fail[ ed] to state an offe nse under the pena l code in that Title 5 of the Penal Code do[es] not apply to the Controlled Subst ance s Act." The trial court held a hear ing in which Christian' s counsel ref err ed to Section 1.03 of the Te x as Penal Code a nd ar gu ed "t h e o n ly

three sections of the Pena lChristian also objected to the inc lusion of this i ndictment lang uag e in the trial c ourt' s char g e. 3 4 Cod e that in c or

po rate oth e r la w tha t cr e a te fe lon ie s ar e in Tit le s 1, 2, and 3. " Th e mot ion

to q ua sh was de nied, and Christian wa s sentence d to twenty -five y ear s' incar cer ation and a $5,000.00 fine. 3 II. AN AL YSI S Since the suff

iciency of a c harg ing instrument presents a que stion of law, we r eview de novo a trial c ourt' s decision deny ing a motion to quash an indictment. Sta te v . B ar be rn e ll , 2 5 7 S. W.3d 24 8, 25 1– 52 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Lawr e nc e v . S tat e , 240 S.W .3d 912, 9 1 5 (T ex . C rim. App. 20 07 ); Tol le tt v . S

tat e , 219 S.W .3d 593, 596 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. re f' d). The Te x as Penal Code state s a per son commits an offense if he or she :

c omm its or

a tte mpt s to c omm it a

fe lon y , o the r t

ha n ma ns la ug hte r, a nd

in t he c ours e of a nd in f ur the ra nce of the c omm iss ion

or a tte mpt

. . . h e c omm its or

a tte mpt s to c omm it a n a c t c le a rl y

da ng e ro us to hum a n li fe that c a us e s th e de a th o f a

n in div idu a l. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(b)( 3) (Ve rnon 2003). Christian alleg es the State fa il ed t o "sta te a c riminal offe nse." Although both murde r and delivery of a c ontrolled su b s t an ce a re f elonies, Christian argues that Texas prec edent a nd the lang uag e of Sec tion 1.03 prohibit the application of the Texas Pena l Code to the Texas Health and Safety Code. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.112 (Ve rnon 2003). The elemental principle of transfe rre d intent is ingra ined in the history of our c riminal law. Lom ax v . S tat e , 23 3 S.W. 3d

30 2, 30 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ) ( de c idi ng tha t f e lony mur de r s ta tut e "dispe nses with culpable me ntal state is consistent with the historical purpose of the fe lony -murder5

rule, t h e v e r

y e s s e n c e o f w h ic h is to ma k e a p e r s o n g u il ty o f a n ' u n in te n ti o n a l' mu r d e r w hen he

cause s another pe rson' s death during the commission of some ty pe of a felony ") . Thus, in essence , Christian a

rg ues intent to deliver c ocaine cannot be transfe rre d to satisfy the re quirements of Sec tion 19.02, i.e., there is no underly ing of fense . To aid our deter

mination in this matter, we will beg in by interpre ting the pla in meaning of the fe lony murder sta tute. A. The Plain Meaning of the F elony Murder Statute I f t he l a n g u a g e o f

a s tatu te is c le a r

a n d u n a mb igu o u s , e xtr in s ic a id s a n d r u le s o f s tatu to ry construction ar e inappr opriate, a nd the statute should be g iven its common everyday meaning

. City of Rock wall v. Hughe

s , 24 6 S. W.3 d 6 21 , 6 25 –2 6 ( Te x. 20 08 ); Ro dr igu e z v . S tat e , 953 S.W .2d 342, 353 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, p et

. re f'd ). I f a w ord is clea rly and unambig uously

define d by

the L eg islature, the definition is binding on the c ourts. Tra ns po rt I ns . Co . v . F

air c lot h , 898 S.W .2d 269, 274 (Tex. 1995). "T he provisions of [t he Penal Code] shall be construed acc ording to the fair import of t hei r t erm s, to pro mo te ju st ice and effect th e ob jec ti ves of t he co de. " T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.05 (Ve rnon 2003). Section 19.02(b)( 3) of the Texas Penal C ode allows the transf er of intent of any

person who "com mi ts or at tem pt s t o com mi t a f elo ny , o th er t han man sl aught er." Thr e ad gil l v . S tat e , 146 S.W .3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The definition of "f elony " is " an offe nse so desig nated by law or pu ni sh abl e by

deat h o r con fi nem ent in a pen it ent iar y ." T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (23) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The Code further define s "la w" as i ncluding "the constitution or a statute ofL iteral tra nslation: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another

. 4 6 thi s state or of the Un ite d Sta te s." T EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 1.07(a) (30) ( Ver non Supp. 2008). Since the Health and S afe ty Code is a Texas law that desig nates de livery of coc aine a s a fe lony , and this felony

is not manslaughte r, the plain re ading of the statute leads us to conclude de livery of a controlled substanc e ca

n be used to supply

the under ly ing of

fense in a fe lony

murder c harg e. B. Canons of

Construction One f amiliar ca non firmly

g rounded in Te x as jurisprudenc e is the rule of e x pr essi o u niu s e

st

e x c lu s io a lterius , rea soning tha t a statute' s inclusion of a spec ific limitation ex cludes a ll other 4 limit ations of that ty

pe. Un ite d S

e rv s. Au to A ss'n v . B rit e , 215 S.W .3d 400, 403 (Tex. 2007); Sta te v. Mauritz-Wel ls Co. , 14 1 T e x. 63 4, 17 5 S. W.2 d 2 38 , 2 41 (1 94 3) ; Rodriguez , 953 S.W .2d at 354 (citing Gu inn v . S

tat e , 696 S.W .2d 436, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1985, pet. re f' d)). Her e, the f

elony murder statute exempts only manslaug hter as an underly ing offe nse. Applica tion of expre ssio unius est exclusio alterius s u g g e s ts th a t a ll o th e r f e lo n ie s c a n s e r

v e a s a n underly ing offe nse. Another c anon of c onstruction mandates the presumption that the L eg islature knew of prior court de cisions before enac ting or amending a statute. Cases decide d befor e the amendme nts made to the felony

murder sta tute in 1994, a

nd wher ein petitions for discre tionary revie w wer e re fused by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, specifically included the a

pplication of extra-pe nal offe nses to the felony murder rule. Ne v ar e z v. S tat e , 847 S.W .2d 637, 641, 648 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993,7

pet. re f' d) (a ff

i rm i n g denial of motion to quash a f elony murder indictment with possession of marihuana as underly ing of fense ); Br y an t v . S tat e , 79 3 S. W.2 d 5 9, 60 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 90 , p e t. ref ' d) (upholding c o n v iction based on fe lony murder indictment with possession of mar ihuana a s

un de rl y ingof

fe ns e ); St an

for d v . S tat e , N o . 0 1

- 8 7

- 0 0 8 9 9

- CR , 1 9 8 8 WL 1 1 3 9 9 7 , a t * 1

– 3 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Di s t

. ] Oct. 27, 1988, pet. ref' d) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication) (uph o l d i n g t ri al cour

t's de nial of def

endant' s motion t o quash indictment based on a rg ument that possession and delivery of cocaine could not supply mens rea for felony murder statute). Thus, t he L eg islature wa s presumed to know Te x as cour ts were approving the use of of fense s in the Texas Hea lth and Safety

Code to supply

the felony require d in the felony murder statute, but did nothing in subsequent amendme nts which would exhibi t disag ree ment with these holding s. See D avis v. Sta te , Nos. 05-98-02108- CR, 05-98-02109-CR, 2000 W L768632, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas J une 15, 2000, pet. ref' d) (mem. op., not desig nated for publ ication) (disc ussing a pplication of fe lony murder sta tute to drug sale). C. Christian's Cited Cases Are Distingui shab le Despite our holding that the plain mea n i ng of the fe lony murder sta tute is disposi tive of C h r i s t i a n ' s p o i n t o f e r

r o r , w e m u s t a d d r e s s t h e t h r e e c a s e s f o r m i n g t h e m a

j o r i t y o f h i s a r g u m e n t

. In

e a c h of the se c a se s, the de fe nd a nt wa s c ha rg e d wi th a tte mpt ing or c on sp ir ing to c omm it a n o ff e ns e not found in the Texas Penal Code.8

Th e fi rst cas e is Mo or e v . S tat e , 545 S.W .2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). I n Mo or e , an appea l w as taken f

rom a c onviction of attempt to obtain a contr olled substance thr oug h fra ud. Id. at 141. M oore did not violate the Controlled Substance s Act in the Texas Hea lth and Safety Code on which the indictment wa s based be cause the statute re quired a ctual possession of the substanc e. I n order to circumve nt this obvious de ficienc y , the State argued that the L eg islature intended f or the g e ne ra l c ri min a l a tte mpt

pr ov isi on

e nu mer ate d in T itl e 4 o f t he Te xas P e na l Co de to a pp ly to violations of the Controlled Subst ance s Act. Id. Reasoning that Section 1.03(b) of the Texas Penal Code specific ally stated only "T itles 1, 2, and 3 of this code apply to offense s defined by

other law s," and aptly noting ther e wa s no law that prohibited attempted possession, the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls concluded tha t the attempt provision in Title 4 of the Penal Code wa s not meant to combine with the Hea lth a

nd Safety Code to c reate a ne w offe nse. Id. at 142. The court held the indictment did not alleg e an of

fense and, ther efor e, the c onviction was void. Id. This ruling w as af

firmed in Ba k

e r v. S tat e , d e c id e d th e f

o ll o w in g y e a r . 5 4 7 S. W. 2 d 6 2 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1977). B aker was c harg ed with conspiracy to sell marihuana. Id. at 628. Once ag ain, the Controlled Substances Ac t under whic h Ba ker w as cha

rg ed re quired a

n intentional or knowing delivery of marihua

na. Id. The S tate arg ued that the Texas Penal Code' s g ener al cr iminal conspiracy statute containe d in Title 4 could l atch onto the Controlled Substance s Act to cre ate a new offe nse—the c onspiracy

to sell marihuana. Id. a t 629 . The c ourt re je c te d th e Sta te ' s a

rgume nt, employ ing the same re asoning as in Mo or e , a nd he ld t he c ri min a l c on sp ir a c y

statut e did

no t a pp lyBe fore enac tment of the Texas Pena l Code , criminal statutes wer e scatte re d t hroug hout 5 Texas jurisprudence

. When the Texas Pena l Code was enac ted, Titles 1 throug h 3, which involved g ener al provisions and principles of crim in a l r e sponsibili ty

and punishments, wer e expressly applied to e xtra -p e na l of

fe ns e s th ro ug h Se c tio n 1 .0 3 a s a g e ne ra l f ra me wo rk fo r a ll c ri min a l st a tut e s. 9 to t he Con tr oll e d Su

bs tanc e s A c t. Id. Consequently , the Texas Court of Criminal Appe als found the un de rl y ingc on vic tio n wa s vo id be c a us e the c ha

rg ingins tr

ume nt d id n ot a lle g e a n o ff e ns e a g a ins t the laws of the state. Id. Th e la st ca se a dd

re sse d b y Chr ist ian w a s Sta te v . Co ly an dr o , 23 3 S.W. 3d 87 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). John Col y a nd ro , Jame s El lis , a nd To m D e lay we re c ha rg e d w ithc on sp ir a c y

to v iol a te

cer tain provisions of the Texas Election Code, including conspirac y to make an unla wful political contribution. Id. None of the provisions of the Te x as Elec tion Code w ith whic h they wer e cha rg ed made mere conspirac y to violate the Code an off ense. A s in Bake r , the State ar g ued that the g ener al criminal conspira cy

statute could tag onto the Texas Electi o n C ode to cr eate a new violation. Id. The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls g rante d revie w on the S tate' s alleg ation that the lower court

err ed in holding that "the criminal conspiracy provisions of section 15.02 of the Texas Penal Code did not apply

to the felony

offe nse of makingan illeg al contribution under the Texas Election Code." Id. at 874. I n Col y an dr o , the majority

rea ffirme d and re lied on Ba k e r a n d Mo or e , which they stated

" y ie lde d b ro a d i mp li cit hold ing s— that th e inc ho a te of

fe ns e s c on ta ine d in

Ti tle 4 d o n ot a

pp ly to offe nses def

ined outside the Penal Code." I n other wor ds, the court was bound by the principle of 5

sta re de c isi

s and held the c onspiracy statute could not apply

to the Election Code to create a newA v i go ro u s d i s s en twa s fi l ed b y J u d ge C o ch ra n an d t h re e o t h er m em b er s o f t h e c o u rt

. J u d ge 6 Pr ic e wr ote a c on c ur

ri ng op ini on

wh ic h in dic a te d h e a g re e d w ithJudg e Coc hr a n' s r e a so nin g , b ut f e lt b o u n d b y sta re de c isi

s . J udg e Price further serve d notice that future relianc e on Mo or e and Bake r wou ld be, "at b est , u nwi se. " Col y an dr o , 233 S.W .3d at 886.

10 offe nse. Id. at 874–76, 884. The majority also noted that, af ter Ba k e r and Mo or e wer e dec ided, the L eg islature ame nded many , but not all, ex tra-pe nal code provi s i ons to specifica lly include conspirac y . Ba sed on the rationale that the L eg islature had r atified its decision in Ba k e r and Mo or e , the cour t de termined not to g lobally apply conspirac y to e x tra-pe nal code offe nses. Id. at 878. The court uphe ld the trial court' s finding that the indictment f ailed to a lleg e an of

fense and its quashing of the " Election Code-ba sed conspira cy char g es." Id . at 885. 6 I n contra st with these three case s, Christian was charg ed with a violation of the Pena l Code: murder. Mur der is committed if a pe rson:

(1 ) int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

c a us e s th e de a th o f a

n in div idu a l; ( 2 ) int e n d s t o c a

u s e s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y a n d c o m m i t s a n a c t c le a rl y dang erous to human life that cause s the dea th of an individual; or (3) commits or attempts to c o mmit a f elony , other than ma

nslaug hter, a

nd in the course of and in furthera nce of the commission or attempt , or in im m ed i at e flig ht from the commission or attempt he c ommits or attempts to commit an act cle arly dang erous to human life that cause s the de a th o f a

n in div idu a l. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02. The thre e methods of c ommitt ing mur der s et fo rt h in the statute are differ ent manner and

me a ns of c omm itt ingthe same of fe ns e , n ot d ist inc t and

se pa ra te of fe ns e s. Ga nd

yv . S tat e , 222Dicta is lang uag e in an opinion that is unnece ssary to the dispositi on of the c ase. State v. 7 Brabson , 97 6 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 2 , 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). This Court is dut y bound to acc ept the 11 S

. W

. 3 d 525, 529 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2007, pet. re f' d) (c iting Aguir re v . S tat e , 732 S.W .2d 320, 325–26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (h o l d i n g t h at, wher e indictment containe d two para g raphs, the f

irst alleg ing mur der unde r Section 19.02(b) (1) a nd th e s e c o n d alleg ing mur der unde r Section 19.02(b)( 3), the alleg ations wer e mere ly two differ ent manner and mea ns of committing the same off ense) ). Christian was convicte d for c ommitt ing the offe nse of murde r by the third manner a nd means authorized by

the statute, usually

ref err ed to a s t h e fe l ony

murder r ule. Ther efor e, to convict Christian of murder by

this manner and me ans, t he S tate had to present evide nce that he committed a fe lony

. This indictment did not authorize a conviction for an offe nse that did not ex ist in l aw, but

mere ly delineate d the proof nece ssary to me et the statute' s require ments for this particula r manne r and mea ns of committing mu rd er. I n Bake r , Mo or e , and Col y an dr o , eac h of the off

enses we re

c re a te d a nd de fi ne d b y

inc or po ratin g pr ov isi on s f

ro m T itl e 4 ( no t 1, 2, or

3) of the Pe na l Co de int o vio la tio ns of

the law foun d ou ts id e the Pe na l Co de . H e re , th e of fe ns e is p ro mul g a te d in

a we llestablished provision of the Texas Penal C ode, which simply sets forth the methods for provingthe statute was violated. We f ind these ca ses ar e distinguishable

. The holding of Col

y an dr o , which is binding pr ece dent, is th at "t h e i n choate offe nses

con tai ned in Ti tl e 4 d o n otapp l y t o o f f e n s e s defi ned ou ts id e th e P enal Co de. " Col y an dr o , 233 S.W .3d at 874–75. Howeve r, i n dictum the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also stated tha t the 7g uidance of dec isions of the Texas Court of Crimina l Appea ls (even thoug h they are five-f

our decisions) unless the la

ng uag e of the deci s i o n i n q u es t i o n is only dicta and not a

part of the ra tio de c ide nd i. Du nk ins v . S tat e , 838 S.W .2d 898, 900 n.1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. re f' d). 12 Texas Penal Code " direc ts the export of the provisions contained only i n T i t l es 1 , 2 , and 3" and "c ontemporane ously bars the import of extra-pena l offense s to offense s in Titles 4 through 11 of the P enal Co de. " Id. a t 88 4. Th e dis se nt p oin te d o ut t he dif fi c ult y of thi s d ic tum

. We need not apply

this dictum t o our ca se. The Moore, Bak er and Col y an dr o op ini on s a ll dealt with fac t situations that clearly did not amount to offenses unde r the e x tra-pe nal code sections with which those defe ndants wer e char g ed. I n other words, there was no such crime a s conspirac y

or a tte mpt to vio la te the Te xas He a lth a nd Sa fe ty Cod e or the Te xas Ele c tio n Code

. I n th os e c a se s, the State could only survive a motion to quash i f i t could somehow attac h an attempt or c onspiracy provision to a statute outside the Texas Pena l Code

. Ba sically , the courts had to deal with the issue of whe ther a

cre ativ e i n d i ctm ent could cr eate a new offe nse for

which the L eg islature did not provide. Her e, the fe l o n y o ffense of murde r, conta ined in the Penal Code, wa s char g ed by the indictmen t. T h e ma

n n e r a n d me a n s o f p r o v in g th is f o r m o f mu r d e r w a s b y th e c o mm is s io n of a felony . This felony

offe nse supplied the intent for felony murder as has historically been unde rstood and applied in this State. No newoffe nse wa s cre ated in the indictment a nd no absurd r esult bars the a pp lic a tio n of the pla in me a nin g of the statut e . F or thi s re a on , we ne e d n ot ven tu re i nto13

Col y an dr o 's dic tum . M or e ov e r, we do no t th ink that Col y an dr o , in

its lim ite d r

uli ng , in te nd e d to overturn T exas felony

murder jur isprudence as commonly understood in the cour

ts of this S tate. III . CO NC LU SION We affir m the trial court' s judgme nt deny ing Christian' s motion to quash t he indi ctment.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: April 2, 2009 Date D ecide d: April 24, 2009 Pub lis h