### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 331 -CR

F e r m ine Loui s C as ti llo , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 05- 677- K2 6 , HO NORAB LE B ILLY RAY STUB B LEF IELD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jur y fo un d ap pe lla

nt F e rm ine L ou is Cas til lo g uil ty of fe lon y mur de r, fo r w hic h it
a sse ss ed a punis hme nt o f t hir ty y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt, a nd int oxic a tio n ma

ns la ug hte r, fo r w hic h it assessed a punishment of twenty y ear s’ imprisonment. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 19.02(b)( 3) (We st 2 00 3) , § 49 .0 8 ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 7) . App e llan t c on te nd s th a t th e tw o c on vic tio ns c on sti tut e double jeopa rd y , and the St ate c oncede s err or. Ac cording ly , we will re verse the intox ication
mans la ug hte r c on vic tio n. I n his o the r i ssu e s, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e fe lony mur de r c ount s ho uld have be e n q

ua sh e d, and th at the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly a nd fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for that offense . We will overrule these contentions and a ffirm the murde r convic tion.

A fe w minutes after 5 : 00 a.m. on April 21, 2005, appe llant was driving his J eep Cherokee s o uth—the wrong way —in the northbound lanes of I nterstate 35 w hen he c ollided head- on with a Chevrolet va

n driven by

I saac Dy ck. Appe llant was alone in his J eep, but Dy ck’s wif e and2

seven o f th e ir c h il d r e n w e r e a ls o in th e v a n . O n e o f th e c h il d r e n , a ls o n a me d I s a a c , was killed. Appellant wa s intox icated.

Count on e of the ind ic tme nt a lle g e d that a t the tim e a nd pla c e of the inc ide nt, appe ll a n t w a s o p e r a ti n g a mo to r v e h ic le w h il e in to xic a te d , th a t a p p e ll a n t h a d

tw o previous convictions for dr iving while intoxicated, and that, “ in the course of and in fur thera nce of

the commission” of this felony offe ns e, appellant “ committed an ac t clear ly dang erous to human life , namely , operated a motor ve hicle southbou n d i n a n o rt hbound lane on Interstate 35 a nd collided with another vehicle,” causing the death of I saac Dy ck. Se e id
. § 19.02(b)( 3) (West 2003) (f elony murder) , § 49.04(a) (W es t 2 0 0 3) (dr iving while intoxicated), § 49.09(b) (2) ( West S upp. 2007) (e nh a nc e d d

ri vin g wh ile int oxic a te d off e ns e ). Ap pe lla

nt mov e d to qua sh thi s cou nt, a rguin g that a p e r s o n c a n n o tb e g u i l t y o f a h o m i c i d e u n l e s s h e c a

u s e s t h e d e a t h o f

a n o t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn o w i n g l y,
rec klessly , or with criminal neg lige nce, a nd that d ri v i n g while intox icated c annot serve as the underlying f

elony in a felony murder prosec ution because it does not require a culpa ble mental state. He br ing s f

or wa rd thi s argume nt i n h is s e c on d is su e on a pp e a l. Whil e this appea l was pending , the cour t of criminal appea ls a

nnounced its opinion in Lom ax v . S tat e , 2 3 3 S
. W .3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). L ike appe llant, L omax was driving while intox icated when he had a fata l c ollisi on, and he was c onvicted of f elony murder. Id . at 303. The c ourt of cr iminal appeals gra nted review t o deter

mine whether a fe lony

murder c onviction can be base d on driving while intox icated or any other fe lony

that does n o t re q u i re a culpa ble mental state. Id . T he c ourt

c on c lud e d that it c a n, ho ldi ng that se c tio n 1 9. 02 (b )( 3) pla inl y dis pe ns e s w ith a culpa ble mental state. Id
. a t 30 4- 05
. I n oth e r wo rd s, the a c tor ne e d n ot i nte nd

to c a us e the de a thAs authority , appellant c ites the State’s re sp o n s e t o h i s motion to quash, in which the 1 state me nt w a s ma de that “ [b]y re qu ir in g pr oo f o f a

n a c t c le a rl y

da ng e ro us to l if

e , th e statut e implicitl y adopts a re cklessness r equire ment.” 3 of the de cea sed or ha v e an y other c ulpable mental state with reg ard to “ the ac t of murder ,” and there fore the under ly ing f elony need not have a c ulpable mental state
. Id . at 307. Lomax is disposi tive of this issue. The trial cour t did not er

r by overr uling a ppellant’s motion to quash count one. Se e als o Bi gnon v. S ta te , Nos. PD-1769-06 & PD-1770-06, 2008 T ex . C ri m . Ap p . L E XIS 1 , at * 9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . J an . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( re af fi rm i n g Lomax ). I ssue two is overrule d. I n his third and fourth issues, appe llant contends that th e ev i dence is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to sustain his felony murder c onviction. Se e Cla y ton v . S tat e , 235 S.W .3d 772, 77 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ) ( le g a l su ff ic ie nc y sta nd a rd of re vie w) ; W

ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (factua l sufficienc y standard of

revie w). Appe llant does not
c ha llen g e the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e wi th r e g a

rd to t he un de rl y ingfe lon y

of dr ivi ng wh ile intox icated. Mor eover , he does not c ontend that the State fa iled to prove that he was driving the wrong way

on the interstate a

nd collided with the dece ased’ s vehicle, causing the dece ased’ s death. Ne ve rt he le ss, a pp e lla nt ur g e s tha t the e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt in two re sp e c ts, bo th ha vin g to d o w ith the alleg ed “a ct clea

rly dang erous to human life .” F ir st, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e Sta te fa ile d to pr ov e that he wa s d ri vin g re c kle ssl y when he collided with the dec ease d’s vehicle . That is, appellant c ontends that the State did not prove that the ac t clear ly

dang erous to human life , “oper at[ing] a m o tor vehicle southbound in a
n o rt h b o u n d

l a n e o n In t e r s t a t e 3 5 a n d c o l l i d [ i n g ] w i t h a n o t h e r v e h i c l e , ” w a s c o m m i t t e d r e c k l e s s l y. 14

I n Lomax , h ow e ve r, the c ourt of c ri min a l a pp e a ls no te d that it ha d pr e vio us ly de c ide d th a t a c ulp a ble mental state is not require d for the “ act c lear ly dang erous to human life .” 233 S.W.3d at 307 n.16 (c i t i n g Lugo-

Lugo v . S tat e , 650 S.W .2 d 7 2 , 8 1 (T ex . Crim. App. 1983) (interpr eting what is now section 19.02(b) (2))
.

Ap pe lla nt’ s se c on d a

rgume nt i s th a t th e S tat e faile d to pr ov e that th e a c t c le a rl y dang erous to huma

n life was committed “in the cour se of a nd in further ance of the c ommissi on” of the under ly ing f

elony . Appellant does not de ny that he drove the wrong way and collided with the dece ased’ s vehicle w hile in the c ou rseof driving whil e int ox icated, but he urge s that this conduct did no t further

the commission of that offe nse. To the contra ry , appellant a

rg ues that the c ollisi on actua lly halted the commission of t he underly ing felony
. The same argument was raised and r ejec ted in Bignon
. See 20 08 Te x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 1, a t *9 -1 2. Th e re , the c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h e ld that a rational trier of f

act c ould find that “driv[ing] a heav i l y l o aded Jeep towing a loade d trailer
acr oss the cente r stripe of a roadw ay into the oncoming la

ne of tra vel” wa s conduct in fur

thera nce of the unde rly ing f

elony driving while intox icated of fense
. Id . at *11-12. The State was not require d to prove that the ac t clear ly dang erous to human life was committed rec klessly . Whether viewe d in the light most favor able to the ve rdict or neutrally , the
e vid e nc e re a so na

bly su pp or ts the jur y ’s fi nd ing that a

pp e lla nt c omm itt e d th e da

ng e ro us c on du c t in the course and in f

urthera nce of his c ommissi on of felony driving while intox icated. I ssues three and four a re ove rruled. We sustain appellant’s first issue, by which he ur g es that the c onvictions for fe lony murder a nd intox ication manslaug hter constitut e double jeopar dy
. Both c onvictions were based on5

the same c onduct re sulting in the de at h of the same victim. The State conc edes tha t under the
c ir c ums tanc e s, the tw o c on vict ion s c on sti tut e un a uth or ize d mu lti ple punis hme nts fo r t he sa me offe nse. See B ignon , 2008 T ex . C ri m. App. L EXI S 1, at *27-29. The r emedy is to set aside the conviction for

the less serious off

ense, w hich her e is intox ication manslaug hter. Se e Ex pa rte Cavazos , 203 S.W .3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

There are separ ate judg ments of conviction for eac h count. The judg ment of conviction o n co u n t one, for murder, is a ffirme d. The judg ment of convic tion on count two, for intox ication manslaug hter, is re verse d, and the pr osecution for that offe nse is dismiss ed.

___________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Affir med in part; Rever sed and D ismiss ed in par t Filed: June 26, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh