NO. 07-06 -040 0-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER24, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JULIO ANT ONIO NEVARE Z, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 51, 579- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t J uli o Ant oni o N ev arezappeal s from hi s j ur y co nv icti on of the offense of murde r and hi s resul ti ng se ntenc e of impr is onment f o r a ter m of tw enty -fiv e y ears i n the In s ti tu ti on al D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 19.02( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 3)
. This is a s econd deg re e 1 felon y pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor life or for any term of not mo re tha n 99 years or less tha n 5 years. Tex. Pena l Code An n. § 12 .32 (Vernon 200 3). 2 Factual Bac kg ro und Appel lan t’ s i ndi ctmentch arg ed th at he i ntent ion all y and know i ng ly

ca used the d eath of Edg ar Al ex Av il a, by

st abbi ng hi m w it h a k nife. F oll ow ing hi s p le a o f n o t gui lty , t he 1 ma tter proce ede d to tri al by jury
. At tr ial, the Sta te’s evidence show ed that during the early morni ng hours o n a n ig ht i n M ay 2005, bar

patrons w ere l eav ing a l o ca l bar
. As sev eral in d ivid u a ls a p p ro a ch e d th e pa rki n g l o t, t h e vic ti m a n d a f rie n d o f ap p e lla n t b e gan f igh ti n g. Atwo -m in u t e a lt e rc a t io n e n s u e d a n d a f t e r t h e vi c t im a n d t h e f ri e n d we re se p a ra t e d b y a sec ur ity g uard, ap pel lan t c ame from behi nd the v icti m and sta bbed him in the n eck w it h a kni fe. The v icti m la ter

di ed from t his w ound. Appel lan t t est ified at tr ial , cla imi ng self-de fense and “a cc ide nt.” At the c los e of the ev ide nce, appel lan t s ubmitted p ro p o se d j ur y i nst ru cti ons on s elf- defense and on mansl aug hter

as a l ess er-i ncl uded of fense. T he cour

t inc lud ed th e req uest ed i nst ru cti on on s elf- defense, but d eni ed th e mans lau g hter ch arg e. The ju ry

retur ned a v erdict of

g uil ty as all eg ed i n the i ndi ctmentand ass ess ed puni shmentag ain st appel lan t atco nfinement for a ter m of tw enty -fiv e y ears. This appeal foll ow ed. Ana ly sis By hi s sol e iss ue on appeal , appell ant conte nds the tr ial courtabused its di sc re ti on by fail ing t o i n struct t he j ur y on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of mansl aug hter , t hereby3

deny ing appel lan t due proces s and eq ual protec ti on of t he law
. W e find appel lan t w as not enti tl ed to a mans lau g hter i nst ru cti on. If facts are el ic it ed dur ing tr ial that ra is e an is sue of a le ss er-i ncl uded offense and a c harg e i s p ro per ly

req uest ed, t hen a charg e on the is sue must be g iv en. Ros s v . St ate, 861 S. W .2d 8 70, 8 77 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)
. The Co urt o f C ri minal Appea ls has e st a b lis h e d a two-p ro n ged te stto de te r m i n e wh e th e r a d e fe n d a n t is en ti tl e d to a ch a rge on a les ser-i ncl uded offense. Ski nner v. Sta te, 956 S. W .2 d 532, 543 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 199 7); Aev

alov. Sta te, 943 S.W .2d 887, 88 9 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) ; Roy ste r v. State, 622 S.W .2d 4 42 ( Tex .C ri m. Ap p . 1 9 81)
. See also Hal l v. State, 225 S.W .3d 5 24, 5 35 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) (a ppl y ing te st ); Baca v. Sta te, 223 S.W .3d 4 78, 4 80 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2006, no pet .)
. Fi rs t, the l ess er-i ncl uded of f e n se m ustbe i ncl uded w ithin the proo f nece ssary to establish the of fense charged, an d, seco nd, some ev iden ce mu st exi s t i n th e rec ord th at w ou l d pe r mi t a j ur y rat i on al l y to fi nd th at i f th e de fen dan t is gu il t y, h e is gu il t y only

of the l ess er

offense. Skinn er, 956 S.W .2d a t 543 , citi ng R ouss eau v. State, 855 S.W .2d 666, 673 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)
. See also Hall, 225 S.W .3d a t 535 - 36; Moor e v . St ate, 969 S.W .2d 4 (Tex.Crim.Ap p. 19 98). In de ciding w het her the issue of a lesser-include d of fense is raised, w e look to all the e v ide nce p re sent ed attr ial
. Hav ar d v . St ate, 800 S.W .2d 1 95, 2 16 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) ; Gr

otti v. Sta te, 209 S.W .3d 7 47, 7 73 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 06) , a f

f ’d , 2 0 0 8 WL 251 283 2 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 08). T he cred ibility of the evidence and w het her it is cont ro v erted or confli cts w it h other ev ide nce may not be c onsi dered. Hav ar d, 800 S.W .2dC our ts someti mes al so phrase the first prong of the tes t as req uir ing thatthe 2 ass erted l ess er-i ncl uded offense c ome w it hin the prov is ion s of ar ti cl e 37. 09. See Moore , 969 S. W .2d a t 6- 7; Baca , 223 S.W .3d a t 480
. 4 at 21 6. Furthe rmore , it is noten o u gh t hatthe jury ma y disbelieve crucial ev iden ce per tai nin g to the g re ater

offense. Skinn er, 956 S.W .2d a t 543. R a th e r, there mustbe some e v ide nce direct ly

g er mane to a l ess er-i ncl uded offense for the fact -fin der to cons ide r before a n i nst ru cti on on a l esser -in cl uded offense i s w ar ra nted. Id. Th e de fend ant 's tes ti mony

alone maybe suffici ent to rai se the is sue of a less er-i ncl uded of fense. Lug o v. State, 667 S.W .2d 1 44, 1 47 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. The par ti es ag re e the first prong of the t esti s s ati sfied. T h e i n d ict ment c harg ed appel lan t w it h murder

as def ine d in § 19.02( b) (1 ) of the Pen al Cod e, req uir ing proof that he i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

ca used Av il a’s death. Appel lan t coul d hav e been c onv icted of mansl aug hter on proof t hat he re ck les sl y caus ed Av il a’s death. See Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann . § 19. 04 (Ve rnon 200 3 ) (de f ining man slaughte r). Manslau ghter thus was a lesserinc lud ed offense of the c harg ed murder
. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 37.09( 3) (V e rn o n 2 006) ( offense is l ess er-i ncl uded offense i f, inter alia , i t di ffers from o ffense charg ed onl y

i n respe ct that a l ess cu lpa ble mental st ate s uff ic es to es tabl is h i ts commi ss ion ); Schr

oeder v. Sta te, 123 S.W .3d 398 , 400 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3) (v olun tary ma nslau ghter is l esser-includ ed o f fens e o f m u rd er und er Code o f Cri min al Proced ure article 37. 09(3 )). 2 App ellanttestif ied th at atclosing time, he lef t the bar beh ind his f riend. The bar’s doo rw ay w as crow ded w ith pa trons lea v ing the bar. He saw the altercati o n b e tw een hisThe record i ndi cat es that the v icti m sus tai ned s ev eral supe rfic ial stab w ounds and 3 abra sions in ad dition to the stab wound in his ne ck. The record al so refle cts that appel lan t c ut an other i ndi v idu al across the cheek and 4 nost ri l. 5 frie nd and the v icti m. H e tes ti fied th at he w as sens it iv e to suc h sit uati ons becau se he and his brother

had been i nju re d in a bar assaul t in 2003. As he w as lea v ing the bar , s omeone hithi m in the back , c ausi ng him to fall to one knee. He w as punch ed in the forehead and the b ack of his head and w as ki ck ed i n the butt ock s. Hi s s ung las ses w ere k nock ed off the back of his head and his medall ion w as broken and ri pped off his nec k. H e “ pani ck ed” and re ached for a nd open ed hi s p ock et k nife. He tes ti fied th at w hen he took the kni fe out he “w as sc ared. [H e] did n’t know w hat w as g oin g on. [H e] did n’t know w hat was ha p p e n ing to [ his ] fri end. [H e] di dn’ t k now w hat w as g oin g to happen to [hi m].” H e y ell ed outtw ic e “ g et aw ay , I hav e a k nife” and sw ung the kni fe fast , maki ng cont act
. He tes ti fied th at w hil e he knew the knife w as ma king contact , he “didn ’t think it w as tha t bad .” 3 Appel lan t furt her

tes ti fied th at atso me poi nt, he real iz ed he w as str ug g li ng w it h the v icti m. The v icti m w as pushi ng hi m dow n and hitti n g h im i n t h e b ack of his head. Appel lan t c onti nued hi s e rrati c mov ements w it h the knife until he fel t bl ood on him. H e s aw the v icti m hol din g hi s n eck , real iz ed th at he injured the vi cti m, and pushe d aw ay . Later 4 in his tes ti mony , appel lan t charact er iz ed th e s tabbi ng as “ an ac ci dent, ” then sai d he “w as jus t t ry ing to protec t my sel f.” App lication o f

the seco nd p rong of

the te st requires that t h e re exi st in the reco rd some e v ide nce that appel lan t w as re ck les s in caus ing the death of t he v icti m, butdi d notThe c ontext of appel lan t’ s s tatementw as the fol low ing : 5 Q: ( by co unsel ): W hat w as y our feeli ng aboutthi s t oday as w e s ithere? A: (b y appel lan t) : If I coul d tak e it back , I w is h–I w is h I wou ld n e ver hav e been there. 6 act i n te n ti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly
. See A danandus v. Sta te, 866 S.W .2d 2 10, 2 32 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1 9 9 3 ) (a ppl y ing se cond prong anal y si s)
. Sect ion 6.03 (c ) of the Tex as Penal C o d e p ro v i d e s t h a t a p e rs o n ' s c o n d u c t i s re c k l e s s w h e n h e “ i s a w a re o f but c o n s c io u s ly d i s r e g a r d s a su b s t a n t ia l a n d u n ju s t if ia b le ri s k
. . . t h e re s u ltwil l o c c u r. ” T e x. Pen al Code Ann. § 6.03 (c) (Ver n o n 2 0 03). In con trast, on e acts inte ntion ally “w hen it is his conscio us obje ctiv e or desire to engage in the con ductor cause th e result” or knowing ly “w hen he is aw are tha t his cond uct i s reaso nab ly certain to cau se the result.” Id. I n oth er w ords, for a ppel lan t t o receive an i nst ru cti on on the l ess er i ncl uded offense of mansl aug hter , a ra ti onal jur y must be abl e to find th at ap pel lan t beh av ed i n s uch a w ay that he c onsc iou sl y

di sreg arded a subs tanti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk tow ard the v icti m, butw as not aw are that his condu ct w as re asona bly cer tai n to c ause the v icti m's deat h. Id. ; Cha vez v. State, N o. 07 -0 3- 0509 -CR, 2 005 W L 14039 92 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo June 15, 2 005, no pet .) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication). Appel lan t poi nts to his st atement that the s ta b b in g w as “a n ac ci dent. ” In deter mini ng w hether

there i s ev ide nce to s uppor t a re q uest ed reck les snes s c harg e, c our ts hav e found a sta tement that a defendant did not int end to ki ll the v icti m “c annot be pl uck ed o u tof the reco rd and ex am ined in a v acuu m. ” Gods ey v. State, 7 1 9 S
. W
. 2 d 5 78, 5 84 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ; see Ma rt ine z , 16 S.W .3d at 847. Nei ther i s a ppel lan t’ s s tatement that the s tabbi ng “ w as an ac ci dent” proper ly pl uck ed from th e r e cord and ex amined i n a v acuu m. Vi e wed in con text, w e do not agree it provides evi den ce ap pellan t w as aware

5Q: Do y ou w is h tha t y ou nev er had been t here bec ause of w hat h as happened to y ou or bec ause of w hat h as happened to M r. Av il a? A: I do not t hin k i t s houl d hav e tur ned outl ik e tha t. Itw as an ac ci dent. Q: It w as an ac ci dent? A: Yes, sir
. Q: Di d y ou hav e any i dea t hat y ou w ere g oin g to caus e the damag e tha t y ou caus ed i n thi s p arti cul ar i nci dent? A: No si r, I w as jus t ty ing to protec t my sel f. If I c oul d tak e i t bac k, I w oul d. 7 of but con sciously disregarded a su b s tan tial and unjust if iable risk thathis actions would re sul t i n Av il a’s deat h. In respon se to t he v er y next q uest ion , app ell ant a ss erted h e “ w as jus t t ry ing to protec t my sel f,” re tur nin g to his cons is tent theme that he w as re spond ing to the a ttac ks on h im, and w as act ing i n fear of his l ife. Moreo ve r, t h is court an d oth ers have held th at th e justif ication of self-defense is inc onsi ste nt w it h a c lai m thatthe defendant acted o nly reck les sl y . See Cha vez v. Sta te, 2005 W L 1403992 at * 2, ci ti ng Ma rt ine z v. Sta te, 16 S .W .3d 8 45, 8 48 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2000, pet. ref’d]) ; Johns on v . St ate, 915 S.W .2d 6 53, 6 59 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on st [ 1 4 D i s t
. ] 1 9 9 6 , p e t
. r ef’ d ) ( a l l h o l d i n g “ o n e c a n n o ta c c i d e n t a l l y o r re c k l e s s l y

a c ti n s e l f- th defense” ); acc or

d, A vi la v. State , 954 S.W .2d 830, 843 (Tex .App. –El Paso 1997, pet. re f’d) (h old ing defendant’ s t est imony he a cte d i n s elf- defense precl uded a n i n str uct ion on re ck les s d is charg e of w eapon)
. W e find that hol din g appl ic abl e here. As did the defendant i n Cha vez , 200 5 W L 14039 92 at*2, appel lan t here reli es on O’ Br ien v. St ate, 89 S .W .3d 7 52 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2002, pet. ref’d)
. There, the st defendant i ntent ion all y ai med a g un at the v icti m in sel f-defense bu t w as str uck ov er the head w it h a b oard, c ausi ng hi m to c len ch and fire the g un ac ci dental ly
. Id. at 755- 56. The cour t det er mined the e v ide nce w as suffici ent t o s ug g estthe defendant reck les sl y ca used8

the dea th of

the victim and e ntitled him to an instruct ion on the lesse r of fense of inv olun tary mansl aug hter
. Id. O’

Br ien is of t he cat eg or

y of c ases that inv olv e ev ide nce a w e apon acc ide ntal ly

di sc harg ed. See, e.g., Hayes v. Sta te , 728 S.W .2d 8 04, 8 09- 10 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1987) , c it ed i n Johns on , 915 S.W .2d a t 659
. This i s n ot s uch a c ase, and O’ Br ien i s i nappos it e. F or thes e reason s, we f in d t h e s e co n d p ro n g of the tes t i s n ot s ati sfied. The t ri al cour t di d noter r in re fus in g to ins tr uctthe jur y on t he l ess er

i ncl uded offense of ma nslau ghter. Accordin gly , w e overrule a p p e lla nt’s issue on app eal, a nd a f f irm his conv icti on and sent ence.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Publ is h.