C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS LUI S CAMACHO, Ap pe lla nt,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No

. 08 -0 6- 00 09 0- CR

Appea l from the 41st DistrictCourt of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 20040D02278)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a jury conviction for the lesser- i n cl u d ed o ffe nse of attempted ag g ravated kidnapping . The jury assessed punishment at t wenty y ear s’ imprisonment, and a f ine of $1 0, 00 0. We a ff

ir m. I. SUMMAR

Y OF THE E VIDENCE At 6:4 5 a .m. , on J un e 10 , 2 00 3, Sus ana Vi lla wa s w a lki ngon

Sc e nic Dr ive on

he r w ay to Crockett Eleme ntary

School in El P as o , Texas, where she wa s teac hing summer school. She saw

a ca r pass, a nd then she notice d it had turned and was approa ching her in the ot her direction. S he

re c og nize d th e dr ive r as the ind ivi du a l who ha d pa sse d he r jus t bef or e . T he ind ivi du a l st op pe d in the mid dle of

the ro a d a

nd y e lle d at V ill a to g e t int o the c ar. He wa s w e ari ngso me ty pe of un if or m, and she br iefly

thought that he was a

police off

icer . Howeve r, he c ame to Villa and grabbe d her by her arms and attempted to pull her toward his ca

r. She strug g led as he drag g ed her towards the c ar. She threw he rself on the paveme nt, a cting as dead weig ht. Whil e she was on the g round, she kicke d the c ar d oo r s hut w ithhe r f oo t. A s th e str

ug g le e nd e d, Vi lla

saw t hat th e a ssa ila

nt h a d a kn if e in h is hand. The knife wa s about eig ht inches long and it had a gree n handle.Villa did not remember being stabbed. Howeve r, she was picked up by two people who w ere

passing by

in a van, a

nd they noticed that she ha d blood all over he r pants. S he realized she had be en stabbed. At trial, Villa wa s shown a knife that had bee n s u bsequently remove d from Appe llant’s bedroom. She testified that it resembled the knif e used in the attack, but she c ould not be sure it was the same knife . Villa identified Appellant in the courtroom. She testified that she wa s positive of he r i de nti fi c a tio n, statin g that sh e “ jus t [ ha d not] fo rg ott e n that fa c e .” No ob je c tio n w a s lo dg e d to the in-cour

t identification. Debor ah I baven a nd her mother

Rebec ca w ere driving in a van on Scenic Drive when they witnessed the attack. De borah sa w a man hitting something. When the y g ot c loser, De borah sa w Villa on the g round strug g ling with the man. She was kicking , strug g ling, a nd scre aming for he lp. Th e man w a s tr

yingto p ic k h e r u

p b y he r a rm s. At fi rst, De bo ra

h th ou g ht s ome so rt

of do me sti c dispute was occ urring . She beg an to ca ll 9-1-1 on her phone. Howe ver, a s other c ars a pproac hed, the individual dropped Villa a nd drove of

f. De b o ra h testified that she wa s able to obser ve the

a tta c ke r, and

wi tho ut o bje c tio n, sh e ide nti fi e d App e lla nt i n c ourt

a s th e a ssa ila

nt. Re be c c a I bave n te sti fi e d s he wa s ta

kin g he r d a

ug hte r t o he r c oll e g e c la sse s b y wa y of Sc e nic Dr ive , w he n s he saw the dr ive r i n f ro nt o f he r loo kin g ba c k at so me thi ng . Sh e ob se rv e d th e str ug g le betwee n a man a

nd a woman. T he woman w as y elling for help. The man had a moustache and wa s

wea ring a mec hanic’ s uniform. Rebec ca ide ntified Appellant in cour t as the assa ilant. No objection was lodg ed to the identification. II. DI SCU SSIO N I n I ssu e No . O ne , App e lla nt a sse rt s th at the ve rd ic t is imp ro pe r, be c a us e the jur

y fa ile d to

rea ch a ve rdict on the g reater off ense of aggr av at ed kidnapping , befor e it considere d the lesser

i n cl u d edo ff

en s e o f a t t em p t edaggr av at edk i dn ap p i n g.The a pplication para g raph in the c ourt’s cha rg e to the jury

rea d: Now if you find from the evidenc e beyond a re asonable doubt that on or about t h e 1 0 T H d ay

o f J U N E , 2 0 0 3 , i nE l P a s o C o u n t y , T e x a s , t h e D e f e n d an t , LU IS CAMACHO, d i d then and ther e, int e nt ion all y or know ingly ab duct another , namely , Susana Villa, by using or t h reatening to use deadly f orce , to-wit: by sta bb ingthe sa id S us ana

Vi lla wi th a kn if e OR by g ra bb ingthe sa id S us ana Vill a with his hand while holding a knife a nd the said Def

endant did then a

nd there use or exhibi t a deadly w eapon , to -w it: a kn if e , d ur ingthe c omm iss ion of or imme diate flig ht from said off

ense, the n y ou will find the Defenda nt g uilty of AGG RAVATED KI DNAPPI

NG as c harg ed in the indictment. (Ve rdict F orm A) Un le ss you

so find be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t, o r i f you

have a re a so na ble doubt thereof

, y ou will acquit the Def

endant LUI S CAMACHO of AGGRAVA TED KI DN APP I

NG(V e rd ic t Fo rm B ) an d ne xt c on sid e r wh e the r t he De fe nd ant i s guil ty of the lesse r included of

fense of ATTEMPTED A GGRAVATE D KI DNAPPI NG.

. . . Now if y ou find from the e vidence beyond a re asonable doubt that on or about t h e 1 0 T H d ay

o f J U N E , 2 0 0 3 , i nE l P a s o C o u n t y , T e x a s , t h e D e f e n d an t , LU IS C AM ACHO, did then and the re w ith specific intent to c o mm it th e o f fense of Ag g ravated Kidnapping , do an ac t, to wit: at tempt to abdu ct an o t h e r , n a m e l y, Susan a Vi l l a, by

using or threatening to use deadly f orce , to-wit: by

stabbing the said Susana Villa with a knife OR by g rabbing the said Susana Villa with his hand wh i l e h o l d i n g a kn i f

e an d t h e s a i d D e f

e n d an t d i d t h e n an d t h e r e u s e o r e xh i b it a deadly w eapon , to-wit: a knife, dur ing the commission of or immediate flig ht from said offe nse, which a

mounted to more than mere preparation that tended but fa iled to eff e c t t h e c o mm is s io no f

th e o f f e n s e in te n d e d , th e ny o uw il l f in d th e D efe ndant g uil ty of AT TE MPT ED AG GR

AV AT ED KI DN APP I

NG . ( Ve rd ic t F or

m C) Un les s y ou

so fi nd be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, o r i f you

have a re a so na ble d o u b t t h e r e o f , y o uw il l a c qu it

th e D e f e n d an t L U I S C A M A CH O o f

A T T EMPTED AGGRAVA TED KI DNAPPI NG. (V erdic t Form D) (Emphase s and ca

pitaliz ations in origina l). Th e jur y wa s f ur the r i ns tr uc te d th a t: I f y ou believe f

ro m t h e evidence be y ond a re asonable doubt that the Def endant is g uilty

of either AGGRAVA TED KI DNAPPI NG or A T T E M P T ED AGGRAVA TED KI DN AP PI NG but y ou have a

rea sonable doubt as to which offe nse he is guilty , then y ou must resolve that doubt in favor of the Def endant a nd find him guilty

of the lesse r incl u d ed off ense of ATTEMPTED AGG RAVATED KI DN APP I

NG . ( Ve rd ic t F or

m C)V er di ct For m C r ea ds : “ W e, t h e Ju r y , f i n d t h e D ef

enda n t , LUIS CAM ACH O , g u i l t y of t h e of f en s e of 1 A T T E M P T E D AG G R A V A T E D K I D N A P P I N G , ” wi t h a pl ace bel ow f or t he s i gn at ur e of t he P r es i di ng Jur or. V er di ct For m C i s t h e f

or m wh i ch t h e Pre s i di n g Ju r or was , wi t h ou t obje ct i on , i n s t r u ct ed t o s i g n , i f t h e j u r y bel i ev ed be y on d a re a so n a b le d o u b t t h a t A p p e llan t w a s g u ilt y o f e ithe r t h e g re a te r o r th e les se r-inc lud e d o ff e n se , b u t t h e y ha d a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to the o ff

e n se o f wh ic h he w a s g u ilt y. (Capitalizations i n orig inal). The pre siding juror

signe d Ver dict For

m C, finding Appellant guilty of the lesse r-include d 1 offe nse of attempted ag g ravated kidnapping . The other forms we re bla

nk. No objection was lodg ed to t he ve rd ic t. Appellant maintains that the jury was instructed to de cide the char g ed count first. Only afte r they unanimously

found him not guilty

wer e they to proce ed to consider the lesser -included of fense

. Th e re fo re , th e ve rd ic t w a s all e g e d to be impr op e r, in t hat th e jur

y wa s n ot a uth or ize d to pr oc e e d to consider the lesser- included off ense. A ppellant cites no authority for this proposition. Even if one is c iti nga no ve l argume nt, he mus t pr ov ide ana log ou s c a se law o r p ro vid e the re vie wi ng c ourt wi th

s o m e l ega l fr am ew o rkfo r e v al u at i n g t h e a s s er t edp ro p o s i t i o n . T o fa i l t o d o s o i s i mp ro p er b ri ef i n g, and the issue should be ove rruled on that gr ound, if no other. Ton g v . S tate , 25 S.W .3d 707, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Furth e r mo r e , n o tw it

h s ta n d in g th e im

p r o p e r b r ie f

in g , w e n o te th a t a g u il ty v e r d ict on the lesser- included off

ense se rves a s an implied acquittal of the g reater-c harg ed offe nse. Se e, e .g ., Sta te v. Re strepo , 8 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d

3 2 7 , 3 2 8 (T ex . Ap p . -- W ac o 1 9 9 4 , p et

. d i s m ’d ) ( ci t i n g G r e e n v . U n ited States , 355 U.S. 184, 190-91, 78 S. Ct. 221, 225 (1957)). Fur thermore , a convic ti o n o f a lesserincluded off

ense se rves a s a bar to retrial of the g reater-c harg ed off

ense in the e vent of the g ranting of a ne w trial. SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 37.14. I ssue No. One is overrule d. I n I ssue No. Two, A

ppellant contends that the cour t err ed in allowing the in-cour t identifications of the State’ s witnesses. At trial, De borah I baven te stified she was able to g et a g oodloo k at th e Ap pe lla nt, and sh e ide nti fi e d h im, wi tho ut o bje c tio n, a s V ill a ’s a ssa ila nt. On c ro ssexamination, testi mony

was e licited that she had been shown sever al photo line- ups by the police, and she ha d identified ot her indivi duals who s he thought wer e the assailant. Counsel also elicited from De borah that the p ro s ecutors had shown her Appellant’s dr iver’s lice nse at a pretria l confe renc e. She testified on re- direc t e x amination that she had se en Appe llant in the hallway outside the cour troom and told th e p ro s ec u t o rs t hat he wa s the assailant. This wa s after she had se en the driver’ s license. Outside the pre sence of the jury , Appellant m o v ed fo r a mistrial, base d on prosec utorial mis c on du c t. I

n th e a lte rn a tiv e , h e re qu e ste d a c on tin ua nc e . T he c ourt

de nie d b oth

mot ion s. Rebec ca I baven a lso testified she was shown se vera l photo line-ups, and s he had identified “some pe ople, but [she didn’t] know if that wa s the corr ect one .” She identified Appellant in court without objection. She stated she wa s positive of her identific ation. Susana Villa testified she w as shown a photo-li neup that included a picture of A ppellant, and she identified Appe llant from the photo-lineup. She a lso testified that she had a lso seen four other pho to

- li n e u

p s w h ic h d id

n o t i n c lu d e Ap p e ll an t’ s p ic tu r e , an d s h e h a d n o t b e e na

b le to identify anyone. A police detec tive testified that Villa identified Appellant from a photo- lineup he showe d her and that the lineup ha d been pr esente d to her in a non- sug g estive manne r. Another police detec tive testified t hat s ix or seven photo-lineups wer e prepare d and shown to t he wi tne sse s bef

or e Ap pe lla

nt ha d be e n de ve lop e d as a wit ne ss. Ne ith e r the I

bave ns no r V ill a

was a ble to make a

n identification, althoug h the I bavens ha d identified some people who re sembled the attac ker. The ir identifications we re not positive, and the of fice rs wer e not able to ar

rest any of the individuals they

identified.Appellant did not challeng e the id e nti f ic a ti o n s th r oug h a pre trial identification hea ring . Also, Appellant did not o b

j ec t at t he time the witnesses ide ntified him in court. At the ver y least, there must be some contempora neous objection at trial in order to place the admissibili ty of identification testimony in issue. Se e W

all ac e v . S tate , 75 S.W .3d 576, 584 (Tex. App.--Te x arka na 2002), aff’d, 106 S.W .3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Absent a contempora neous objection to th e in-court identification base d on impermissibly sug g estive pr e tria l i d e ntification proce dures, suc h a complaint is not preserve d for r eview. Va n Zan dt v . S tate , 932 S.W .2d 88, 94-95 (Te x . App.--E l Paso 1996, pet. re f’d)

. I n the pre sent ca se, no objection was made at trial. Fur ther, Appe llant did not object to the admissibili ty

of the identifications at any time during the t rial. According ly , the issue has not bee n prese rved f

or re view. I ssue No. Two is over ruled. I n I ssue No. Thre e, Appe llant argues that the trial c ourt err ed in not gra n t ing A ppellant’s mot ion fo r d ir e c te d v e rd ic t, b e c a

us e the e vid e nc e wa s fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt to pr ov e Ap pe lla

nt guil ty

o f a t t em p t edaggr av at edk i dn ap p i n g. I nitially , we must addre ss the State’s contention t h at t his issue is im proper ly briefe d and prese nts nothing for appellant review. I n order to properly

brief a challeng e to the suff

iciency of the evidenc e, the br ief must have a summary of the testimony

or other evidence rele vant t o the eleme nt of the off ense that is challeng ed, ac companied by appropr iate citation s t o authorities and to the

rec ord. See G allegos v. State, 76 S.W .3d 224, 228 (Tex. App.--Da llas 2002, pet. ref ’d). He re, the argument portion of the issue consists of seve ral pa rag raphs whic h expli cate the standar d of re view for f actua l sufficienc y . The e vidence is not discussed, t h er e ar e no citations to the rec ord, and no

argume nt i s st a te d p ointin g out ho w the e vid e nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt o r what e le men t of the of fe ns e is deeme d as insufficie ntly

proven. This issue is insuff iciently briefe d and prese nts nothingfor r eview.SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. l( h) ; Mc Du ff v . S tate , 939 S.W .2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied, 522 U.S. 844 (1997). I ssue No. Thre e is overr uled. III . C ON CL USI ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

KENNET H R. CARR, J ustice April 3, 2008 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Do Not Publish)