### NUM BER 13-07- 0067 0-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
OSC A R REN E B ENA

VIDE Z, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 89t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Ap p e lla nt, Osc ar

R ene Be nav ide z , app eal s fr om hi s c onv ic ti on for the o ff ense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 22. 01( 1) , 22. 02( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 8 )

. A p p e l l a n tw a s i n d i c t e d fo r a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t a g a i n s th i s e s t r a n g e d w i fe (c ount 1) and, i n the same occ ur re nce or tr ansac ti on, for bur g lar y of a habi tati on w it h i ntent to com mit sexual assa ult (coun t 2). T he jury a cquitted app ellant o f

b oth ch arges. It also2

found appel lan t notg uil ty of the l ess er -i ncl uded offense of burg lar y of a habit ati on w it h the int ent t o c ommit ass aul t. The j ur y di d, ho w ev er , find appel lan t g uil ty of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, an offense su bmit ted t o the j ur y as a les ser-i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. The ju ry asses sed puni shmentat tw enty y ear s' co nfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and i mposed a $10, 000 fine. By thr ee i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends the follo w ing : (1 ) the t ri al cour t er re d i n al low ing the State, ov er

object ion , to submit the l ess er -i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t i n the jur y ch ar g e; ( 2) the ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent to s uppor

t t he j ur y 's co nv ic ti on for
a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d i n c u mu l a t i n g t h i s s e n t ence w it h a pr ev iou sl y

i mposed sent ence in another ca use. W e v acat e the j udg ment and r emand w it h instructio ns to en ter a judgme nt of acquittal. I. L ESSER -I NCL UDE D O FFE NSE OF A GGR A V A TE D A SS A ULT By his firs t iss ue, appel lan t all eg es that the t ri al cour t s houl d nothav e al low ed th e submi ss ion of the l ess er -i ncl uded offense for the j ur y 's co nsi der ati on. W e ag re e. A. A pp licab le L aw To de t e r mi n e w h e t h e r

t h e S t a t e o r

t h e d e fe n d a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o a l e s s e r - i n c lud ed off ense ins tr uct ion , t he c our t of cri minal appeal s h as adopted a tw o- par t t est

. See Hall v. Stat e , 225 S. W .3 d 52 4, 52 6, 53 6 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p. 20 07 )

. The fi r s t pa rt of th e te st is a q uest ion of law that does not d epend o n the ev ide nce pr esent ed attr ial , and , i n thi s c ase, re q uir es us to ask wh e th e r, bas ed on the s tatut or y el ements and the p arti cul ar facts al l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t me n t , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t i s a p r o p e r l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o ffens e of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t. Id. at 535- 36. The anal y si s c an be per formed atany

ti me "by compar ing the ele ments of the off ense as they ar e al leg ed i n the i ndi ctmentor i nformati on
w it h the el ements of the p otent ial l ess er -i ncl uded offense." Id. ; se e T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
.3

A NN
. art. 37.09( a) ( Ver non 200 6) ( pr ov idi ng thatan o ff ense is a proper l ess er -i ncl uded off ense if "i t i s e sta bli shed by pr oof of the sa me or

l ess than al l th e f a ct s re qui re d to est abl is h the co mmiss ion of the o ff ense charg ed")

. I n other w or ds, to deter mine w hether an offense i s a pr oper

l ess er -i ncl uded offense, c our ts loo k "t o the facts and ele ments as all eg ed i n the ch ar g ing i nst ru ment, and notj ustto the s tatut or y el ements of the o ff ense. " Hall , 2 2 5 S

. W .3d at 526 (ex plainin g the court’s ado pte d “cognate -plead ings” app roach ). The cour

t of cr im in al appeal s h as als o s aid on a number of occ asi ons that w hen t he grea ter of

f ense can be comm itted in more th an o ne m ann er, "th e ma nne r alleged w ill deter mine the a v ail abi li ty of les ser-i ncl uded offenses. " Id. at 53 1 ( ci tati ons omit ted)

. The
sec ond partof

the tes t, alt houg h notr eache d i n the pr esentca se, is a q uest ion of fact th at dep end s on the e v iden ce actu ally p resen ted at trial and a sks if th ere is some ev iden ce in the record tha t w ould perm it a jury to ration ally

f ind th at if

app el la nt is guilty

at all, he is g uil ty onl y of the l ess er -i nclud e d o f f e n se. Id. at 52 6 , 5 3 6 (cit in g Bi gnal v. Sta te , 887 S.W .2d 21, 23 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94) (en ba nc)). B. Charge Error T he sta tuto ry

elem ent s of

agg rav ate d sexual assau lt, as mo dif ied an d cha rg ed in count1 of the i ndi ctment , prov ide d tha t app ell ant c ommitte d t h e o f fense of ag g ra v ated
se xual as saul t i f he ( 1) i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

ca used the p enetr ati on of the sex ual
or g an of Adel a C or onado w it hout her cons ent, and (2 ) by act s or w or ds pla ced her i n fear that ser iou s b odi ly

i nju ry w oul d i mminent ly

be i nflic ted o n her

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 021( a) (1 )( A) (i ), ( a) (2 )( A) (i i) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. In t he indi ctmentag ain st appel lan t, the mann er of c ommitt ing ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t w as li mite d to his pl aci ng C or onado in fear t hat s er iou s b odi ly inj ur y w oul d be infli cte d on her

. In cont ra st, a per son commi ts ag g ra v ated ass aul t if the p er son act ual ly ca uses se ri ous bodi ly

i nju ry to another

. See i

d.Because t hi s i ssue i s di sposi t i v e of t he a ppeal , we ne ed n ot add r ess ap pel l ant ' s r em ai ni ng i ssues. 1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1.
4 § 22. 02( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 8 ). N umero us cour ts hav e r ecog niz ed th at t he proof
re q uir ed to sh ow

a t hr eat o f bodil y

har m or i nju ry i s d if ferent than the p ro of req uir ed to show ser iou s bodi ly har m or inj ur y . See, e.g., Sc hm idt

v. Sta te , 278 S.W .3d 3 53, 3 55- 59 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 9) (discussing the d is t in c t ions be tw een threat enin g to cau se bo dily har m and a ct u a lly causi ng bodi ly har m); Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 531 ( noti ng thatas saul t by bod ily injury is not a lesser-includ ed o f f ense to aggr avated a ssault b y threat w ith a de adly
w eapon) ; Tr

ejo v. Sta te , 242 S.W .3d 4 8, 52 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 200 7) , rev'd on ot her gr ounds , 280 S.W .3d 2 58, 2 61 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 2009) (h old ing thatag g ra v ated
ass aul t i s n ot a les ser-i ncl uded of fense of agg ra v ated sex ual as saul t bec ause ag g ra v ated sexual assau lt doe s not require proof of serious bo dily

injury ). Gi v en th e c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s' r ati f ic ati on of thes e l eg al pr inc ipl es, the Stat e conc edes charg e er ro r, a n d we a gr ee. In t his ca se, the les ser-i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t r eq uir ed proof thatappel lan t c aused se ri ous bodi ly i nju ry to Coronado, as op pose d to merely threa ten ing to cau se bo dily injury . Th us, proo f

of an ad dition al f act not a ll eg ed in the indi ctmentw as req uir ed. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37 .09 (a). Therefor e, ba sed on th e s tatut or y el ements a n d t he par ti cul ar facts al leg ed i n the ind ic tment, ag g ra v a ted ass aul t w as not a pr oper l ess er -i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t i n thi s c ase. See Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 535 -3 6. W e c oncl ude t hat i ncl usi on of the l ess er -i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t i n t h e j ur y ch ar g e w as er ro r and
sus tai n appel lan t' s first is sue. See i d. ; see a lso T EX
. P E N A L C OD E A NN
. §§ 2 2.0 1(1), 1 22. 02(a )(1), 22.02 1(a)(2)(A)(ii ).5 II. J URI S DI CT I ON Mo re ov er , t he tr ial co urt has no j ur is dic ti on to conv ic t a defendant of an o ff ense not
c ha r g ed in a n i nd i c tm en t un l es s t ha t offen s e i s a l es s er- i nc l ud ed o ffens e of t he c r i me charg ed. See G ar

ci a v . D ial , 596 S. W .2d 5 24, 5 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ; see a lso Trejo
v. State , 280 S.W .3d 2 58, 2 60 ( Tex . C rim

. Ap p
. 2 009) ( set ti ng out that "subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on r eq uir e s b o th a ge ner al g ra nt of aut hor it y to the t ri al cour

t and a c har g ing ins tr ument t hat i nv okes thatj ur is dic ti on ov er the par ti cul ar ca se")

. In this case ther e i s n o ind ic tment charg ing appel lan t w it h the off ense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, and w e hav e al re ady deci ded t hat a g g ra v ated ass aul t is not a l ess er -i ncl uded offense of the g re ater i ndi cte d off enses
. Acc or din g ly , t he tr ial cour t w as w it hout jur is dic ti on to ente r a j udg ment c onv ic ti ng appel lan t of an off ense not charg ed in the indi ctment

. Therefor e, the purpor ted j udg ment is v oid

. III . C ONCL US I ON Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t her e w as no proper l ess er -i ncl uded offense of ag g ra v ated
ass aul t i n t h is cas e and that the i ndi ctmentdi d notco ntai n a c har g e for the o ff ense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, w e or der the jud g ment v acat ed and the c ase re manded for entr y of a j udg ment of ac q uit tal as to the c har g e of ag g ra v ated ass aul t.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ 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 er ed and filed thi s 8 th da y

of Oct ober , 200 9.