i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 02 0- CR Roge r Edwa

rd M AR TIN EZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 175th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-6235B Honora ble Mary Roman, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 9, 2009 AFF I RMED A jury found Rog er Edw ard Ma rtinez guilty

of r o b b er y -b odily

injury . I n two issues on
a pp e a l, M art ine z co nte nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in: ( 1) re fu sin g to i nc lud e the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of Class-A misdemea

nor assa ult in the jury char g e, and (2) acc epting an incomplete a nd ambig uous jury verdic t th a t d id

n o t i n c lu d e th e s ig n a tu

r e o f th e ju r y f o r e ma n . We a f f ir m t h e tr ia l c o u rt’s judgme nt.04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND J oe Adame was at home with his mother when Pedro “Chomps” Lug o came to his house a nd of fe re d to se ll h im a

fl a t sc re e n pla sma TV fo r $2 00 .0 0. Al tho ug h A dame ini tia lly wa s w ill ingto
make the purc ha se , h e de c ide d n ot t o b uy the TV a ft e r h is m oth e r a dv ise d a g a ins t it . Wh e n A dame told Chom ps he dec ided not to buy the TV, Chomps beca

me upset and le ft. Se ve ra l ho ur s late r, Cho mps re tur ne d to Ad a me ’s ho us e wi th h is c ou sin , M art ine z. A dame
w e n to u t s i d e t o s p e a k t o b o t h m e n . C h o mp s a c c u s e d A d a m e o f

d i s r e s p e c t i n g h i m e ar l i e r t h a td ay,
and Ad a me a po log ize d f

or any pe rc e ive d d isr e sp e c t. Ac c or din g to Ad a me , wh e n h e re a c he d o ut t o shake Chomps’s hand, Ma rtinez stepped up and hit him in his mouth, knocking him to the g round. At trial, Adame testified Chomps and Martinez beg an hitting and kickinghim while he was on the g round, and the n Chomps ins tructed Ma rtin ez t o t ak e his neck c hains. Martinez then ripped Adame’ s chains off

his neck, a

nd Chomps and Martinez ran a way . When the police ar

rived, Ada

me told Office r Michae l Gonzalez that Chomps and Martinez robbed him; Adame , howeve r, could only supply the offic er w ith Martinez’s first name, Rog er. Af te r s e arc hin g the are a , th e po lic e we re un a ble to l oc a te e ith e r su sp ect or the sto le n n e c k c ha ins
. Detec tive Gilbert Tovar led t he investi g ation on the ca se and discove red that the two suspects we re cousins. Adame and his mother subsequently identified Chomps and Martinez from a photo line-up
as the two assailants; Martinez was indicted for the offe nse of robber y -bodily i n j u ry an d t he indictment contained a

repe at offe nder e nhance ment alleg ation. After t h re e d ay s , a jury found Martinez g uilty

of robbe ry -bodily

injury , and the trial court a ssessed a se ntence of twenty -five year s imprisonment.04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 3- L ESS ER -I NCL UDE D O FFEN SE I n his f irst issue, Martinez contends the trial court e rre d in denying his re quest to include the lesser- included off

ense of Class-A misdemeanor

assault in the jury

char g e. The trial court ove rruled his request a

nd submitt ed the jury

char g e without the instruction. We reviewa jury

char g e err or under the standard se t forth in Al ma nz a v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Under Al ma nz a , we must first deter mine whether

err or exists in the jury char g e. See id. a t 17 1; se e als o A irl inev . S tate , 721 S.W .2d 348, 351 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Second, we must deter

mine whether sufficie nt harm was cause d by the er ror to re quire re versa l. Id. ;
se e als o A irl inev . S

tate , 721 S.W .2d at 351. An offe nse is considere d a lesser -included of fense if the proof

of the c h a r g e d o ffe nse includes the proof require d to e stablish the lesser-inc luded offe nse. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P RO . art. 37.09 (V ernon 2006). We use a two- step approa ch to deter mine whether a def

endant is entitled to a jury

instruction of a le sser-inc luded offe nse. Se e Ha ll v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 524, 535-36 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007). The first step in the ana ly sis is a question of law, and w e must use a p l ea d i ng s approa ch to dec ide whether a party may be entitled to a lesser- included off ense instruc tion. Se e Ha ll at 535. Under

the pleadin g s a

p p r o a c h , w e mu s t c o mp ar e “ th e e le me n ts o f th e o f f e n s e a s th e y ar e a ll e g e d in the indictment or information with the ele ments o f t h e potential lesser-included of fense .” Se e id . at 535-36. The se cond step in our a naly sis as k s “w h et h er there is evidence that supports g iving the instructi o n to the jury [,] ” and w e conside r “a ny thing more than a sc intill a of e vidence [t o be] sufficie nt to entitle a defe ndant to a lesser char g e.” See id. at 536. “In other wor ds, the evidenc e must establish the l esser -included offense as a ‘ valid, rational a lternative to the c harg ed off ense.’ ”04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 4- Ha ll , 2 25 S.W. 3d

a t 53 6; se e als o F

or est v . S tate , 9 8 9 S
. W
. 2d 365, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (q u o t i n g Ar e v alo v . S

tate , 943 S.W .2d 887, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Her e, the State indicted Martinez for r obbery -bodily injury and alleg ed that he “ while in the
c ours e of c omm itt ingthe ft

of pro pert y and

wi th i nte nt t o o bta in a

nd ma int a in c on tr ol o f s a id proper t y , did intentionally , knowing ly , and re cklessly cause bodily

injury to J oe Adame . . . by STRI KI NG THE COMPL AI

NANT WI TH THE H AND OF THE DEF EN D A N T
. ” A f ter c omparing the eleme nts of robber

y -bodi l y injury

as alleg ed in the indictment with the eleme nts of Class-A mis de me ano r a ssa

ult , w e c on c lud e tha

t Cla ss- A m isd e me ano r a ssa ult is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of robbe ry -bodily

injury
. Se e Ma rti nez v. S tate , 599 S.W .2d 622, 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (hig hlighting that eac h form of robbery , either r obbery committed by

causingbodily

injury or by threa tening im mi n e n t b o d il y in ju r y , in c lu d e s a

f o r m o f a s s a u lt , e it h e r b y c a u s in g b o d il y

in ju r y or thr e a t, a s a le sse r o ff

e ns e ); Notti ngham v . S

tate , N o . 0 7
- 0 8
- 0 1 3 1
- CR , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 2 4 0 7 5 , a t * 1 ( T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo Jan. 3 0, 20 09 , p e t. r e f’ d) (r e c og nizi ngso me c ourt s h old tha t si mpl e a ssa

ult is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of ro bb e ry ); see also T EX . P EN . C ODE § 22.01(a) (1) ( Ver non Supp. 2008); T EX . P EN . C ODE § 29.02(a) (Ve rnon 2003)

. To c omp le te our a

na ly sis , h ow e ve r, we mus t determ ine wh e the r s ome e vid e nc e e xists to convict Mar

tinez only of the lesse r off ense of Class-A misdemeanor

assault. Se e Ha ll , 225 S.W .3d at 536. Her e, the r ecor d does not contain e vidence that would permit a rational ju ry to find that Martinez was guilty

of only a Class-A misdemea

nor assa ult. Se e Ha ll , 2 25 S.W. 3d a t 53 6; Fo re

st , 989 S.W .2d at 367. Adame testified that Martinez punche d him in the mouth, a nd the blow knocke d him to t he g ro un d. Ad a me te sti fi e d that wh ile on the g ro un d, Ma rt ine z c on tin

ue d to hit and kic k h im and then r ipped off his c hains from his neck. Although Martinez argues that the thef t occur red a fter04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 5- the assault wa s completed, Ada me testified that Martinez was dire cted to take his chains as Mar tinez was hitting a

nd kicking him. On cross examination, Adame fur ther t es t i fied that the c hains wer e taken while the assault was “ still ” happe ning. B eca use the e vidence fai ls to depict that Martinez could be guilty

of only a Class-A misdemea

nor assa ult, the tr ial court prope rly excluded the lesser

included off

ense of Class-A misdemeanor

assault. See T EX . C ODE . C R IM . P R OC . art. 37.09 (V ernon 20 06 ); Ha ll , 2 25 S.W. 3d

a t 53 5; Fo re

st , 989 S.W .2d at 367. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule Ma rtinez’s first issue. I N C OM PL ETE A ND A M BIG U O U S J URY V E RDI CT I n h is s e c o n d is s u e o n a p p e a l, M arti n e z c o n te n d s th e tr ia l c o u rt e r r e d in a c c e p ting an incomplete and ambig uous jury verdic t. Acc ording to Ma rtinez, the jury

verdic t was incomplete a

nd
a mb i g u o u s b e c a

u s e t h e j u r

y v e r d i c tf

o r m d i d n o tc o n t a i n t h e s i g n a tu r e o f t h e f o r e p e r s o no f

t h e j u r y. The State, however, contends t hat M artinez waived this issue for appeal be cause Martinez did not file a motion for ne w trial. We ag ree with the S tate that Martinez waived this issue for appea l. To prese rve a

n issue for
a p p e a l, th e a

p p e ll an t mu s t ma

k e a ti me ly an d s p e c if

ic o b je c tion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a). He re, Martinez did not make an objection t o the verdict when it was re ndere d, but instead, he ra ised the iss ue fo r the fi rs t tim e wh e n he fi le d h is a pp e llate br ie f; a s a

re su lt, Mart ine z wa ive d th e c omp la int
. Se e Sh e lto n v . S

tate , 441 S.W .2d 536, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (holding that beca use appe llant did no t mak e an o bje c tio n to the ve rd ic t w he n it wa s r e nd e re d at tr ia l, a pp e lla nt w a ive d h is contention that the ver dict was incomplete beca use the ve rdict for

ms at the g uilt and penalty stag es of tr ia l ha d tw o d if

fe re nt f or e man s ig natur e s) ; F

i n c h v . S t a te , N o . 0 7
- 0 3
- 0 0 4 5
- CR , 2 0 0 3 WL 22909180, at *3 (Te x . App.—Amar illo Dec. 10, 2003, pet. struc k) (not desig nated f or publication)04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 6- (holding that beca

use appe llant did not object to the verdict whe n it was rende red, a ppellant waive d his argument reg ardingan incomp lete jury verdic t that did not ins truct the jury about a lesse rinc lud e d o ff

e ns e ); Re nn e r v . S

tate , 7 58 S.W. 2d

89 0, 89 1 ( Tex
. App .— Cor pu s Ch ri sti 19 88 , p e t. ref ’d) ( holding that the de fenda nt waived a

ny alleg ed err ors in the verdic t forms bec ause he did not g ive the trial c ourt an opportunity to corre ct them). Even if the e rror

was not wa ived, a ve rdict must be upheld whe n i t s m ea n i n g ca n be
rea sonably

asce rtained. Br ins on v . S

tate , 570 S.W .2d 937, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (holding that
a jur y ve rd ic t mus t be up he ld so lon g a s it s me anin g c an b e re a so na bly a sc e rt a ine d) ; Lun a v . S

tate , 70 S.W. 3d

35 4, 35 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 02 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; Pe re z v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 628, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, no pet.). W hen asc erta ining the ve rdict’s mea ning, w e will liberally

construe the verdic t. Luna , 7 0 S. W.3 d a t 35 9; Perez , 21 S.W .3d at 631. Her e, af ter libera lly

construing the ver dict, we can rea sonably asce rtain that the jury intended t o f i n d M art i n e z g u i l t y. See B rinson , 5 70 S.W. 2d a t 93 9; Luna , 7 0 S. W.3 d at 35 9; Perez , 21 S.W .3d at 631. When the jury returne d from deliberations, the t rial j udg e asked whether the j ury had re ache d a unanimous ver dict. The jury fore person stated that the j ury had re ache d a unanimous ver dict and handed the verdic t form to the deputy . The trial judg e then state d, “The Ver dict For m rea ds: W e, the J ury , find the def

endant, Rog er Edw ard Ma rtinez, guilty of robbery as charg ed in the indictment.” Af te r t he ve rd ic t w a s r e a d, no ne of the jur y me mbe rs e xpre sse d a

ny dis se nt, and the re wa s n o r e qu e st to poll the jury . Ba sed on these fa ct s, we must presume the g uilty verdic t was that of e ach of the jurors. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P RO . a rt . 3 7. 04 (V e rn on

20 06 ); Shelton , 4 4 1 S. W. 2 d a t 538. Ac c or din g ly , w e ov e rr

ule Mart ine z’s se c on d is su e on a pp e a l.04
- 09
- 00 02 0- CR

- 7- C ONCL US I ON B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH