See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1 9.02 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 1 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 7 1.02 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 07 ). 2 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0049 -CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
RU BEN A LE M A N A

/K/A “M A DD Y” A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt

of B ee Co un ty , T exas


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A jury convicted app ellant , Rube n “Maddy” Alem an, o f m u rder and engaging in

1 organiz ed crimin al activi ty, a nd assesse d pun ishm enta t life imprison me nt on both coun ts. 22

By three i ss ues, appel lan t c omplains 1) the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent to s uppor

t t he v erdict, 2) the tr ial cour t er re d in faili ng to sua sponte g ra nt a mis tr ial , and 3) t he p un i s hm en t w as d i s prop or ti on at e to t he s er i ou s ne s s o f t he o ffens e. W e affi r m. A. B ack g ro und 1. F act s S ur ro undi ng th e Mur

der On Apri l 17, 2 005, Reb ecc a R odr ig uez , R ay mond Lemon, Jo hn Phi ll ip Al eman (J ohn Ph il li p) , An na F ar ias , and appel lan t attended a danc e at a Beev il le ni g htc lub ca ll ed the “ Chi ck -A -S aw .” Ap pel lan t w as an “ Her mandad de Pi sto leros Lati nos” ( HP L) g ang member, and his nephew , J ohn Phi ll ip, w as a “p ro spec to” of H PL, a prospecti v e member
w ho had not y et ea rn ed hi s H PL membershi p. Tw o oth er H PL members, Johnn y Vi ll areal and J oe Qu in Vi ll areal , w ere al so presentat the n ig htc lub

. T hatev enin g, D ona ld Bon ham , also an HPL me mb er, ent ered the Chick-A-Saw’s bar w it hout ack now led g ing hi s fel low H PL members. Bonha m, who had re cent ly been
re lea sed from pr is on, h ad renounc ed hi s H PL membershi p. Pursuantto HP L r ule s, a re nounc ement meant Bonham had a “g re en li g ht,” w hic h the g ang defined as “mar ked for dea th” by oth er HPL me mb ers. About midni g ht, Pedro Pena sa w a man w it h an open kn if e i n h is hand l eav e the Chi ck -A -S aw

bar. Outsi de the bar, he s aw the man w it h the kn ife, al ong w it h tw o or three other men, fig hti ng w it h Bonh am. Bonham appeared to be t ry ing to re treat from the men and ” fig ht t hem off .” Pe na s aw Bonha m tri p ov er

a c ur b, an d the n he saw thatBonha m had bee n s hot. Appel lan t, John Phi ll ip, Jo hnny Vi ll areal , Joe Qui n Vi ll areal , and Bonha m
w ere l ater

i denti fied as par

ti ci pants i n the fig ht, w hic h resul ted i n Bonh am’s deat h. That ni g ht, Car ri e Campos w as baby si tti ng at Lemon’ s apartment. About 1: 40 a. m., appel lan t, Rod ri g uez , Lemon, Jo hn Phi ll ip, and Far ias “r ushed ” in to the apart ment. They3

app eare d “scared” or “nerv ous. ” Even thou gh some o n e t u rn e d of f the lights, Camp os, aid ed by the li g ht fro m the TV, s aw a ra g w ra pped around ap pel lan t’ s h and. H is sh ir t w as ri pped op en, a nd he had a cutl ip. F ri g htened by w hat s he s aw , C ampos tol d R odr ig uez she w anted to g o home. W hil e C amp o s a n d R odr ig uezw ere out si de th e apar tment, Lemon c ame out, l ock ed th e door behi nd hi m, and tol d R odr ig uezthey needed to hid e the cars. Camp os lef

t in her car, and Lem on a nd Rod rig uez lef t quickly in separa te cars. On Mond ay, April 18, 200 5, Rod rig o Chap a picked up appellan t and drove to their
w or k s it e. W hen t hey st opped for

b re a kfast, he s aw

sc ra tch es on appe ll ant’ s face. Appel lan t l aug hed w hen Chapa teas ed him about being in a “c at f ig ht” w it h hi s g ir lfri end. Th a t morni ng , tw o pol ic e off ic ers c ame by l ooki ng for a ppel lan t, but a ppel lan t had dis appeared from t he j ob s it e. Afte r work , as C hapa w as dr iv ing off the job si te, he s aw appel lan t app ro achi ng hi s v ehi cl e, y ell ing at him to s top. C hapa as ked him w hat w as g oin g on, and he replied thathe ha d “proble ms. ” Reb ecc a R odr ig uez , app ell ant’ s n iec e, t est ified thaton t he nig ht of the murde r, sh e and R ay mond Lemon w ere at the C hick-A- Saw Bar

. On t he w ay

there, t hey

pi ck ed up ap pe l l an t, J ohn Philli p, a nd A nn a F ar i as . D ur i ng t he d an c e, F ar i as p oi nt ed t o Bo nh am , w ho s tood at t he bar

w ear ing a w hit e hat

. As t h e y lef t t he bar , R odr ig uezsa w Jo hnny V il la re a l a n d Jo e Q u i n V i l la re a l r u n n in g a c ro s s t h e st re e tt o wa rd B o n h a m . Ro d ri gu e z, Lemon, a nd F ar ias g ot into the car . Appel lan t and John Phi ll ip then g ot i nto t he c ar , and they w ent t o Lemon’ s a par

tment. There, R odr ig uezsa w a cu t on appel lan t’ s face. Sh e als o s aw a s tab w ound on the si de of hi s a bdomen. 2. The Invest

igatio n an d Autopsy O f f ic e r J a s o n A lva re z ga t h e re d e vid e n c e f ro m t h e cr im e s c e n e . H e fo u n d two kni v es, a c ell phone, bl o o d , a wh it e c ow boy hat, and tw o brass ca si ng s from a . 224

Rem ington gun. During the search of Joe Quin Villareal’s car, of f icers fo und a .22 gun in the gl o ve compar

tment. I n the tr unk, they found a s il v er-p lat ed .3 80 pi sto l, numerous box es of ammuniti on, a sto len Benel li shot g un, larg e amounts of mari huana, a di g it al sc ale , and a w hit e env elo pe c ontai nin g H PL’ s c onst it uti on. A f ore n s i cfi r e a r m a n d t o o l m a r k s e x a mi n a t i o n c o n fi r me d t h a tt h e g u n t h a tw as foun d i n t h e gl ov e c ompartment of Joe Q uin Vi ll areal ’s ca r w as the w eapon t hat k il led Bon ham . Aforen sic serology ex am inatio n con f irmed thatDNA blood te sts on m ate rials and c lot hin g found at the s cene posi ti v ely i denti fied appe llan t’ s b loo d on the front o f Bon ham ’s jeans. Bonham’ s a utops y

sh ow ed he had fourteen shar p- force inj ur ies caus ed by a s har pedged w eap on, tw o gunsho t w oun ds, and a brasion s. S everal wounds on h is lef t forea rm
w ere defensi v e, an d hi s thi g h had an abrasi on as if hi t by an o bje ct. H e had a c ut on the si de of hi s face and ear lob e. Dea th w as caus ed by mul ti ple , c los e- ra ng e g un- shotw ounds in combi nati on w it h s har p- force inj ur ies ca used by a k nife. 3. D etai ls on HPL Of f icer Reagan Scot t testif ied th at HPL is a prison-a nd-stree t gang that is primarily inv olv ed i n narcot ic s sal es and transpo rt ing fire ar ms and il leg al immi g ra nts

. He sta ted t hat J o h n n y V il la re a l, t h e g a n g’ s l o c a l b o s s , a gr e e d t o a c ta s a co n f id e n t ia l i n fo rm a n ta n d gi ve infor mati on abou t g ang ac ti v it ies

. The morn ing after Bonham’s m urder , Scottand Vil lareal had a me eting, at which time Villarea l id e ntif ied ap pellan t, Joh n Phillip, an d Joe Quin Vi ll areal as thos e inv olv ed in the murde r. Johnn y Vi ll areal tol d Scott that John Phi ll ip w as not a ctu all y

a g ang member ; rather , he w as a “p ro specto.” To ear n g ang membershi p, a5

prospecto must do a “ g ood ac t” or “ honorabl e act,” w hic h means so me ty pe of ag g ra v ated
ass aul t. Cl emente R odr ig uez , a TDC J s ecur ity threat g ro up c oordina tor , t est ified he w as famili ar w it h pri son g ang s, in cl udi ng HPL. H e c onfir med thatBonha m w as an H PL member
an d th atw hi l e i n pr i s on , he t r i ed t o l ea v e H PL b ysigning a "ren ou nc em en t" for m. Rod ri g uezst ated that if an H PL member refused to par

ti ci pate in the g ang , he is mar ked to be ki ll ed. If an H PL member g ets out of jai l and doe s n ot repor t t o H PL i mmediat ely , he is conside red "A W OL pe r HP L r e gulations, " an d the "on ly w ay outis death ." He also t e s t i fi e d t h a ta “ g r e e n l i g h t ” m e a n s t h a ta n i n div idu al is m a r k e d fo r d e a t h a n d t h a ti f a person has a “ g re en l ig ht” and does not tal k to other HP L members , as Bonha m fail ed to do, it is perce iv ed a s shun ning and d isrespect ing th e oth er m em bers w hich Rod rig uez said "is a v er y dang erous thi n g t o d o ." He further tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t had been an H PL member si nce 1990. R odr ig uezst ated that if Jo hn Phi ll ip w as inv olv ed i n the murder , he
w ould auto ma tically

be validated and w ould beco me an HPL m em ber. 4. A ppel lan t’ s V olu ntar y S tatem ents

and Tes ti

m ony Appel lan t g av e tw o v olu ntar y st atements

. In one sta tement, he ack now led g ed a c ut on h is fa ce, bu t did not adm it tha t he w as involv ed in a f ight. He claimed to have cut his face on b ar b e d wire . In t he ot her st atement, he s tated thatw hil e at the d ance, Jo hnny Vi ll areal approac hed his table and said , "[W ]e hav e to tak e care of busine ss ." Appel lan t tol d hi m to “ hol d up, man, I ai n’tg oin g to do nothin g I ain ’tsupposed to do.” Appel lan t w ent outs ide , s aw the fig ht, and ra n to the fig ht in order to g ra b J ohn Ph il li p. He sta ted t hat J ohn Phi ll ip w as tr

y ing to break the fig ht up , t oo. He tol d J ohn P hil li p to "g et ou t of there." During the f ight, app ellantw as stab bed , thu s ex plainin g how his blood got ont o Bon ham ’s6

jea ns. H e di d not know w ho stabbed hi m, but st ated that he fell on t op of Bonham w hen he w as sta bbed. W hen he w as g etti ng up, he s aw Jo hnny st abbi ng Bonha m. H e the n s aw Joe Qu in Villareal sho o tBonh am tw ice. App ellantstate d tha t he said , “hey, man, that ’s enoug h, man. ” After

w ards, appel lan t ran to R ebecc a Rodr ig uez ’s car, w ent to her h ouse, and c lea ned up. H e bur ned hi s c lot hes at hi s mot her ’s hous e. He sta ted t hat J ohnny
ordered th e hi t “ caus e s omethi ng to do w it h tha t dud e, D onald , someth ing i n pr is on, someth ing h a p pened i n pr is on. And i t c ame out that they w anted him out o f the w ay ." Appel lan t s tated thatJo hn Phi ll ip w as not a n H PL member

. At t h e g u i l t/ i n n o c e n c e p h a s e , a p p e l l a n t t e s t i fi e d h e k n e w B o n h a m h a d a “ g re en li g ht,” but did not know

he w as g oin g to show

up at t he C hic k- A- Saw Bar

. W hen he saw Bonham enter

the bar , he hoped HPL members did not see Bonham. At s ome poi nt du ri ng the n ig ht, appel lan t s aw ev er y one g oin g int o the re stroom. He follo w ed th em i nsi de and heard the m di sc uss ing “ w ho w as g oin g to do w hat.” W hen J o h n n y V il lareal g av e J ohn P h il li p a gu n , a p p e ll a n tsa id n o , t o o kt h e gu n f ro m Jo h n P h il li p , a n d ga ve itb a c kt o Jo h n n y. Appel lan t l eft the rest ro om and l ater saw people f ig hti ng outsi de. He w ent to th e fig ht t o see if Jo hn Phi ll ip w as inv olv ed. As he approache d, he saw Johnn y Vi ll areal , John Phi ll ip, and J oe Qui n Vi ll areal fig hti ng w it h Bonham. Appel lan t tol d J ohn Ph il li p to "g et ba ck i n the
car ," butJo hn Phi ll ip ig nored hi m. Appel lan t s aw Jo e Qui n Vi ll areal sh oot B onham, w ho had a kni fe. W hil e appel lan t w as tr y ing to g et John Phi ll ip out of t he w ay , app ell ant t ri pped and w as stab bed byJohn ny Villareal be cause app ellantref used to participa te in Bon ham ’s murde r. Ap pel lan t and Bonha m fell on e ach other

. Aft e rward s, a p pel lan t ran from t he
sc ene.7

Appel lan t s tated he j oin ed H PL i n 1987 and t hat h e had conv ic ti ons for ag g ra v ated
ass aul t, burg lar

y of a bu ild in g , and burg lar y of a habi tati on. He als o s tated thatonc e a perso n is in HPL, the only w ay outis t o b e killed. He said tha t cont rary to John Phillip’s desi re s, he di d notw ant h im t o j oin H PL. B. Su f f iciency of

the Evidence By hi s first is sue, appel lan t c hal le n ges the le g al and factu al suffici ency of the
ev ide n ce t o s uppor

t t he v erdict. In re v iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to supp ort a conviction, w e v iew a ll th e evidence in the light mo st favorable to th e v erdict in
order to deter mine w hether any rati onal tr ier

of f a ct c o u ld h av e found the es sent ial ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 319 (1 979) ; Ha mpto n v. St

ate , 165 S.W .3d 691 , 693 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). T his stan dard gi ve s f u ll p la y t o t h e re s p o n s ib il it y o f t h e t ri e r o f

fa c tt o re s o lve co n f li c t s in t h e t e s t im o n y, to weigh the ev ide nce, and to draw reason abl e i nferenc es from bas icfacts to ult imat e facts. Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 31 9. The tr ier of fact i s t he s ole j udg e of the w eig ht an d
credi bil ity

of the e v ide nce. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38 .04 (Vernon 197 9); Ma rg ra ves

v. Sta te , 34 S.W .3d 912, 919 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2000)

. Thus, w hen per forming a legal-suf

f iciency rev iew , w e ma y not re-evaluate the weig ht an d credibility of the evidence and subst it ute our ju dg ment for that of the fact- finder

. Dewber ry v. Sta te , 4 S.W .3d 7 35, 740 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. W e mustresol v e any i ncons is tenc ies i n the evi dence i n fav or of the j udg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94, 4 06 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. W hen rev iew ing the factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence , w e v iew all the ev iden ce in a neut ra l li g ht, fav or ing nei ther par ty

. W ats on v. State , 20 4 S. W .3 d 40 4, 4 14 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2006) ; Dr

ichas v. State , 1 7 5 S .W .3 d 7 95, 7 99 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. W e w il l setIn th is c a s e , t h e in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d , in r e le v a n t p a r t, th a t a p p e lla n t “ d id th e n a n d th e r e , in te n tio n a lly 3 or knowi ngl y cause t he d eat h of D onal d W esl ey Bonham by shoo t i ng and st abbi ng sa i d Donal d W esl ey B o n h a m w i th a k n i fe a n d a fi re a rm . . . .” 8 as id e t h e v erdict on ly

if: ( 1) the e v iden ce sup portin g the conviction, altho ugh legally suffici ent, is nev erthel ess so w eak that the fact- finder ’s determi nati on is cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust ; or

( 2) the v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the
ev ide nce. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414- 15, 4 17; Johns on v . St ate , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 1 1 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 0). W e can notconclud e a con v iction is “cl e a rly w rong” or “man ifestly unj ust” sim p ly

bec ause w e w oul d hav e v oted to ac q uit

. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417

. In other w ords, w e may

not si mply

su bst itu te o u r ju dg ment for the fact -fin der ’s j udg ment. Johns on , 23 S.W .3d a t 12; Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 4 04, 4 07 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. T o reverse fo r fa ctua l suf f iciency, w e mu st det ermin e, w ith som e objective basis in the record, t hat t he g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont radic ts the
v erdict. Wa t

son , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t4 1 7

. In e xa m in in g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y ch a ll e n ge , we defer t o the fact- finder ’s dete rmi nati on o f t h e c redibi li ty

of the e v ide nce. Swearing en v. State , 101 S.W .3d 89, 97 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03). 1. Mur der A person commi ts murde r if he or she intent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

ca uses the death of an i ndi v idu al. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.02( a) (V er non 2003)

. I ntentca n be infer re d 3 f ro m t he defendant’ s a cts , w ords, and condu ct. Patr ick v . St ate, 9 0 6 S

. W

. 2 d 4 8 1 , 487 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1995) ; Lee v . St ate, 964 S.W .2d 3, 8 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 199 7, pet . ref 'd). Here, the jury

charge i n c lu d e d a n in struction on the law of parties. A p erson is “c ri m in a ll y re s p o n s ib le a s a p a rt y t o a n o f fe n s e if t h e o f fe n s e is co m m it t e d b y h is o wn9

cond uct, b y

the condu ct of

ano the r fo r w hich he is cr imina lly respon sible, or by both.” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7.01( a) ( Ver non 200 3) . A person is cri minal ly respon si ble for a n off ense co m m it te d by

anot her i f, “acti ng w it h i ntentto promote or as si st the c ommis si on of the off en s e , h e s o l i c i t s , e n c o u ra g e s , d i re c t s , a i d s , o r a t t e mp t s t o a i d t h e o t h e r p e rson to comm it the of

fense .” Id. § 7.02( a) (2 ). “E ach par ty to an of fense may

be c harg ed w it h
com mission of

the of fense .” Id. § 7.01 (b). W hil e the presenc e of an ac cus ed atthe sc ene of an o ff ense is not alo ne s uff ic ien t to s uppor

t a conv ic ti on, i t i s a ci rc umstance t e n din g to prov e g uil t, w hic h, c ombine d w it h other facts , may

su ff ic e to show

that t h e ac cus ed w as a par ti ci pant. Bear

dsley v. State , 738 S. W .2d 6 81, 6 85 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1987)

. Fur ther , par ti ci pati on i n an enter pr is e may be i nferred from c ircums tanc es and nee d notbe s how n by di re ct ev ide nce. Id . at684. In t his ca se, a rati onal j ur y co uld hav e det er mined the foll ow ing f ro m the e v ide nce: (1 ) appel lan t w as a l ong -t ime HPL m ember ; (2) the onl y w ay out of HPL w as to be ki ll ed; (3 ) Bonham, by re nounc ing his HP L members hip , had a “g re en l ig ht,” w hic h meant he w as m a rke d for death by

othe r HP L members; (4 ) Bonham s how ed up at t he bar w it hout ack now led g ing hi s fel low H PL members; (5 ) appel lan t s aw Bonha m at the bar and k new Bonham ha d a “ g re en l ig ht;” (6 ) Jo hnny Vi ll areal and Joe Qui n Vi ll areal w ere H PL members ; ( 7) they

and appel lan t w ere at the n ig htc lub the nig ht of Bonham’s murder ; ( 8) on th e ni g ht of the murder , Pe na saw Bonham fig hti ng w it h three or four other

men out si de the c lub ; ( 9) Pena tes ti fied Bonham appeared to be try ing to both ret re at fro m the men and “fig ht t hem off ;” ( 10) appel lan t, John Philli p, J ohnny Vi ll areal , J oe Qu in Vi ll areal , and Bonham w ere l ater

i denti fied as par

ti ci pants i n the fig ht w hic h resul ted i n Bonh am’s deat h; (1 1) at approx imat ely

1:40 a.m. on th e ni g ht of B o n h a m ’s murde r, C ampos saw that10

a p p e ll ant ’s shirt w as ripped ope n an d tha t he ha d a cut lip; (12 ) the night of Bonh am ’s
mu rder, a p p ellantlef

t the nightclub w ith his niece , w ho sa w thathe ha d a cut to his fa ce and a ble edi ng st ab w ound t o hi s a bdomen; (1 3) the day after Bonham’s murder , C hapa
saw sc ra tch es on appell ant’ s face; ( 14) w hen pol ic e off ic ers c ame to the j ob s it e, ap pel lan t had di sappe ared from the job si te; (1 5) Jo hnny Vi ll areal i denti fied appe ll ant, John Phi ll ip, and J oe Qu in Vi ll areal as bei ng inv olv ed i n Bonh am’s murder ; ( 16) forens ic s rev eal ed th at appe l l an t’ s bl oo d w as on Bo nh am ’ s j ea ns ; an d ( 17 ) aft er th e fi g ht , ap pe l l an t burne d his clothe s. Appel lan t prov ide d c ontrov erti ng ev ide nce show ing that : (1) he c ut hi s face on bar bed w ire; (2 ) whe n B o n ham ente re d the bar , he hoped H PL members d id not s ee Bonham; (3 ) after Johnny Vil lareal gav e a g un to Joh n Phi ll ip, appel lan t t ook the g un from John Phillip and g ave it ba ck t o John ny; (4) a ppe llant w as at the f ight in orde r to break it up and to g et John Phi ll ip aw ay from it ; (5 ) dur ing the fig ht, appel la n t was st abbed,
ex pla ini ng hi s b loo d on Bonham’ s j eans; ( 6) a p p ell ant w as sta bbed by Jo hnny Vi ll areal becau se he refused to par ti ci pate in Bonham’ s murder ; and ( 7) appel lan t s aw Jo hnny Vi ll areal st ab Bon ham, and he s aw Jo e Qui n Vi ll areal sh oot h im tw ic e. T h e j u r y w a s e n t i t l e d t o d i s b e l i e v e a p p e l l a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a th e t r i e d t o b re a ku p t h e fig ht an d to keep John Phi ll ip aw ay from i t. See Margrave s, 34 S .W .3d a t 919 ; see a lso Roy v. Sta te, 997 S.W .2d 8 63, 868 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 1999, pet. re f'd). Vi ew ing the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdi c t , we conclud e the ev iden ce is legally suffici ent for

a rati onal j ur

y to find appe ll ant g uil ty

as a pa rty

to Bonham’ s murder

bey ond
a reason abl e doubt

. W e al so conc lud e tha t t he ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on i s n otSee C ur i el v. St at e, N o . 0 1 -0 5 -0 0 7 2 4 -C R , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 1 1 9 8 8 7 , a t *3 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 4 A pr. 12 , 20 07 pe t

. ref' d) (m em . op . ) ( no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ).
11 so w eak that the fact- finder ’s determi nati on is cl ear ly w ro ng and manifestl y

unj ust , or

that the v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. 2. E ngagi ng i n Or gani zed Cri m ina l Act

iv it y The cour t c harg ed th e j ur

y thatthey co uld co nv ic t appell ant of eng ag ing in org ani z ed
cr imi nal ac ti v ity

i f he commi tted murd er as a member of a c ri minal -s treet g ang . A person commi ts the o ff ense of eng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri m in a l a ct iv ity i f, “w it h the i ntentto est abl is h, mai ntai n, or

par ti ci pate

. . . as a member of a cr imi nal street g ang ,” he c ommits
or co nspi re s t o commit one or more spec ified of fenses, here, murde r. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 71.02( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. The Tex as Penal C ode defin es “c ri minal st re et g ang ” as “t h re e o r more persons hav ing a c ommon i denti fyi ng si g n or sy mbol or

an id e n t i fi a b l e l e a d e rs h i p w h o c o n t i n u o u s l y o r re g u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e i n t h e c o mm i ss ion of
c r i mi na l a c ti v ities.” Id. § 71 .01( d) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Und er the pla in lan g uag e of secti on 71.02( a) , a defendant i s g uil ty of eng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti vity when t he St ate prov es the first ele ment–tha t t he defe n d a n t co mmitt ed a spec ificoffense that is l is ted under thatch apter , s uch as murde r– and t he s econd el em e n t, t hat t he defendant
com mitt ed th at of

fense “w ith the inten t to es t a b li s h , m ainta in, or participa te . . . as a
me mb er of

a criminal street gang.” Id. § 71.0 2(a). 4 H ere, t he e v i de nc e s ho w ed H PL i s a p r i s on - an d- s tree t g an g i nv ol v ed i n na r c ot i cs sal es as w ell as transpo rt ing fire ar ms and il leg al immi g ra nts

. Johnn y Vi ll areal w as it s l ocal boss

. Thus, HP L meets the defini ti on of a c ri minal -s treet g ang . See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 71.01( d) (V er non 2003)

. The ev ide nce als o s how ed th at ap pel lan t, w it h the i ntent12

to part ic ipa te as an HP L mem ber , committ ed the speci fied of fense of m urder

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 71. 02(a )(1) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e conc lud e that a ra ti onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e det er mined bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatappel lan t
com mitt ed th e un derlyi ng murde r w ith the in ten t to participa te as a me mb er o f the crimina lstreet g ang , HPL. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 71. 02(a ) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 07). W e also conclu de th at th e evidence suppo rting the conviction is not so w eak th at th e fact-f inde r’s deter minat ion i s cl e a rl y w ro ng and manifest ly unj ustor

the v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. I ss ue one is ov er ru led

. C. F ail ure to Dec lare M is tr ial By i ss ue tw o, ap pel lan t as ser ts the t ri al cour

t er re d i n fail ing to sua sponte g ra nt a mis tr ial bec ause of t he “p oor acous ti cal condi ti ons” of t he cour troom in w hic h hi s c ase w as t ried. A trial court has discret ion to declare a mistrial sua sponte w h e n “ i n [i ts] opi nio n, tak ing al l the c ircums tanc es int o c onsi derati on, t here i s a mani fest nec ess ity for t he ac t, or the e nds o f

pub lic j ustice would oth erw ise be de feat ed. ” Tor re s v . St ate , 614 S.W .2d 436 , 442 (Tex. Cr im. App. 19 81). T he p ower to grant a m istrial sua sponte sh oul d be used
w it h “ the gre a te st caut ion , und er urg ent c ircums tanc es, and for v er y pl ain and obv iou s cause s.” Id .; Par

ri sh v. State , 38 S.W .3d 831, 834 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001,
n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Ex par

te Little, 887 S.W .2d 6 2, 64 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ( conc lud ing tr ial judge's discretion to decla re mistrial base d on man ifest ne cessity limited to “v ery extraordin ar

y and str ik ing ci rc umstan ces ”) ). There mustbe a “ hig h deg re e” of neces si ty that the t ri al come t o an end. Torres, 614 S.W .2d a t 442

.13

A rev iew of the record s how s t hat o n s ev eral occ a sio n s, a witness w as ask ed to speak l ouder

. How ev er , t here i s n o i ndi cat ion thatany obj ect ion w as ma d e to any
acous ti cal condit ion s i n the co urtroom. Hav ing rev iew ed th e tr ial record, w e c oncl ude t he ci rc umstan ces present ed here do not c re ate t he ty pe of “ urg ent c ircums tanc es” req uired for the tr ial jud g e to hav e g ra nted a sua sponte mis tr ial

. See i d. Beca use the c omplai nedof cour troom ac oust ic s d id n o t create a “ manifestnec ess ity ” for g ra nti ng a mi str ial or other w is e defeat t he “ ends of publ icj ust ic e,” w e c oncl ude t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n fail ing to sua sponte grant a m is tr ial

. See T or re s , 614 S.W .2d at 44 2. Iss ue tw o i s o v er ru led

. D. Puni shment By i ss ue th re e, ap pel lan t ar g ues th a t t h e pu n ish m e n t a ss e ss e d w a s d isp ro p o rt io nate to t he s er iou snes s of the off enses , in v iol ati on of the Ei g hth a nd F our

teent h Amendment s of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See U .S. C ON ST . amends . VI II and X IV. T he Ei g hth Amendment prov ide s “E x ces si v e bai l shal l not b e req uired, n or ex ces si v e fines i mposed,
nor cr uel and unusu al puni shmenti nflicted.” U .S. C ON ST . amend. VII I. Ap p e lla nt di d notobj ectto the s entenc e at tr ial

. Addi ti onal ly , he did not file any post -t ri al moti ons or

obj ect ion s c omplai nin g that his sent ence w as eit her di spropor

ti onate to th e seriousn ess of

the of fense , or comp laining abo ut the d isparity, cr uelty, unu sualn ess or ex ces si v eness of the s entenc e. To preser

v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew , a par ty m ustpresenta t imel y

obj ect ion to the tr ial co urt, stat e the speci fic g ro unds for the objec ti on, and obtain a r uli ng . T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; Di

xon v. State , 2 S.W .3d 2 63, 2 65 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. T h e f a ilure to spec ific all y obj ect to an al leg ed di spropor ti onate sent ence in the t ri al cour t or i n a p ost -t ri al14

moti on w aiv es any

er ro r for our

rev iew

. Ja coby

v. Sta te , 2 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6, pe t. re f'd); see, e.g., Nichol as v. State , 56 S.W .3d 7 60, 7 68 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, pet. re f 'd ) (f ail ure to compl ain to tr ial co urt abo ut
cons ecut iv e s enten cing w aiv ed er ro r) ; Sol is v. Sta te , 9 4 5 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 7, pe t. re f'd) (h old ing thata c lai m of a gross ly di spropor

ti onate sent ence v iol ati v e of Ei g hth A mendment w as forfeited by fail ure to ob

ject)

. Here, ap pel lan t nei t h e r o bj e c t e d t o t h e a l l e g e d d i s p ro p o rt i o n a l i t y o f t h e s e n t e n c e i n t h e t r i a l c o u rt, nor raised the issue i n a post -trial mo tion; he is raising it for the f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. Hi s arg ument, therefore, is not preser v ed for re v iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) ; Jac oby, 227 S.W .3d a t 130

. E v e n a s s u mi n g a p p e l l a n tp re s e r v e d t h e c o mp l a i n t , w e concl u d e t h a th i s l i fe sent ences w ere w it hin the sta tut or il y presc ri bed pun is hment rang e. The max imum puni shmentrang e for a first- deg re e felony i s l ife i mpri sonment

. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12. 33(a ), (b) (Verno n 20 03). Pun ishm ent assesse d w ithin the statu tory limits is g ene rally not c ru el and unu sual puni shment

. Har ri s v . St ate , 656 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 86 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 198 3) (holding that pun ishm ent w hich falls w ithin th e limits prescribe d by a v alid stat ute is not ex ces si v e, cr uel or

unus ual ); Sam uel

v. Sta te, 477 S.W .2d 6 11, 6 14 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1972) ; Swinney v. Sta te, 828 S.W .2d 2 54, 2 59 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 2, no pet .). Appel lan t asks th is Cou rtto appl y the Solempropo rtiona te an alysi s test to h is sent ence. S e e S o le m v. He lm, 463 U. S. 2 77, 2 91 ( 1983)

. This Cour t has rec og niz ed th at “t he v iab il ity

and mode of appl ic ati o n o f p ro p o rt ion ate a nal y si s . . . has been q uest ion ed si nce the S upreme C our t' s d eci si on i n Har

m eli n v . M ichig an, 5 0 1 U .S. 957 ( 1991) .”M cG if f in v. St at e, N o. 13- 05- 561- C R , 2006 W L 22945 53 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i August 10, 200 6, 5 no pe t

. ) ( m em . op . ) ( no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). 15 Tr evi no v . St ate, 174 S.W .3d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. re f'd) (c it ing Mc Gr uder v. Puckett, 954 F. 2d 313, 315- 16 ( 5th C ir .1992) ( dis cus si ng the v ar iou s o pin ion s is sued in Har

m eli n, 501 U. S. at 957, and thei r impac t on the Solemdec is ion )) ; see Sul li van
v. State, 975 S.W .2d 755, 757- 58 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1998, no p et.) ( dis cus si ng the impl ic ati ons of the Harm elin o pinion and rev iew ing the prop ortion ality of app ellant 's
se n te n ce under

the Solemand Mc Gr

uder tes ts)

. Ass uming , ar

guendo, t h e v i a b i l i t y o f a propor ti onal ity rev iew , as w e di d i n Sul li van, w e w il l appl y

both the Solemand Mc Gr uder tes ts to t he facts of thi s c ase. See S ull iv an , 975 S.W .2d at 757-58. In bo th Solemand 5 McGruder, we lo o kf ir s ta tt h e g r a v i t yo f t h e o f fe n s e a n d t h e h a rs h n e s s o f t h e p e n a lt y. S o le m, 463 U. S. a t 290 ; McGruder, 954 F. 2d at 316. 1. Gravity of

the Off ense T he e v iden ce sho w ed th at ap pellan t participa ted a s a n HPL m em ber in Bon ham ’s murde r. H e ac ted a s a n “ enforc er” of HPL’ s “ g re en l igh t” r u le

. Bonham w as murde re d becau se he renounc ed hi s H PL membershi p. 2. Har shnes s o f t

he Pen alt

y A p p e ll a n twa s fo u n d gu il t y o f m u rd e r a n d e n ga gi n g i n o rg a n ize d cr im in a l a c t i v it y. He w as indicte d as an hab itual-felon y o f fend er. Based upo n his instan t convictions, his
c r i mi n a l h i s t o r

y , a n d t h e p u n i s h me n tra n g e a v a i l a b l e , w e c o n cl ude t h a ta p p e l l a n t ' s l i fe sent ence s are notg rossly dispropo rtiona te to his cri me s. Th is fin ding end s our ana ly sis und er McGruder. See McGruder, 954 F. 2d at316; see als o Sul li van, 975 S.W .2d a t 757

. Beca use there i s n o ev ide nce in the appel lat e re cord of the sent ences i mposed for ot her16

c r i me s i n Tex as o r

for t he s am e c r i me i n ot he r j ur i s di c ti on s , w e ma y n ot perf orm a co m p a ra ti ve e valu a ti o n us in g th e rem a in in g Solemfactors. S e e S o le m, 463 U. S. a t 292 ; see als o Sul

li van, 975 S.W .2d at 757 -58. T here fore, we concl u d e t h a tapp ellant 's sent e n ce is neithe r g rossly dispropo rtiona te no r cr uel an d un usua l. Issue three is
ov er ru led

. The tr ial co urt' s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 2 4th d ay

of Apr il , 200 8.