C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

D A V ID C A R B A J A L, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 49 -C R

Appea l from the 168th District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC#20060D03759)

O P I N I O N David Carba

jal appea ls his convictions for attempted c apital murder and ag g ravated kidnapping . The jury

sentenc ed Appe llant to 99 y ear s’ imprisonment. Appellant ra ises two iss ue s c ha lle ng ingthe tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to q ua shthe ind ic tme nt. We a ff ir m. Appellant kidnappe d and shot Rodolfo Gutierre z on J anuar y 17, 2006, afte r Mr. Gutierr ez’s friend, Re ne Holguin, stole marijuana f rom Appellant duringa drugdeal. Although he was not injured, Appe llant also shot at Mr. Holg uin as he attempted to flee the scene in a vehicle . Appellant wa s char g ed with three counts of attempted c apital murder and two
c ounts of a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing . T he jur

y c onvic te d App e lla

nt o f a ll c ounts
. Prior to trial, Appellant’s attorney filed a motion to quash the indictment ar g uing that the indictment was def

ective be cause it failed to specif y how the alleg ed off

enses we re c ommitt ed, and ther efor e, fa iled to provide Appe llant with sufficient notice to pre pare a def ense. I n a subsequent motion, Appellant’s counse l argued the indictment must be set aside beca use the-2-

offe nse “attempted capital murde r” doe s not ex ist in t he Te x as Penal Code. The trial court ref used to set aside the indictment. On appea l, Appellant ra ises two issues challeng ing the trial
co urt ’s ru l i n g. In I ssue Two, Appe llant contends the trial c ourt err ed by deny ing his motion to quash the indictment beca

use the off

ense “ attempted ca

pital murder” does not exist in the Texas Penal Code. The suff

iciency of an indictment is a que stion of law. Sta tev . M off , 154 S.W .3d 599, 601 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). When the resolution of a que stion of law does not turn on an e valuation of witness cr edibility

and deme anor, the trial court is not in a appr ecia bly better position to make the deter mination than an appe llate cour t. Mo ff , 1 54 S.W. 3d

at 60 1; se e als o G uzma n v . S tate , 95 5 S. W.2 d 8 5, 89 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Thus , w e re vie w the su ff ic ie nc y of an in dic tme nt de
novo . Mo ff , 154 S.W .3d at 601. Appellant ar g ues that Texas law doe s not recognize an “attempted c apital murder ” offe nse bec ause it is not specifica lly codified in the Te x as Penal Code. We disagree . The Te x as Penal Code provides se vera l independent wa y s in which an individual ca n commit capital murder. See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Subpara g raph se ven of Section 19.03(a) provides that an individual commits the offe nse of c apital murder if that person murders more than one pe rson: (A) dur ing the same c riminal transac tion; or (B) duringdiffer ent criminal transa ctions but the murders a re c ommitt ed pursua

nt to the same sche me or c ourse of conduct. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (7). The Penal Code also provide s that an individual who “with spec ific intent to commit an offe nse . . . does a n act amounting to more tha n mere pr e pa ratio n th at te nd s b ut f

a ils to e ff e c t th e c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e int e nd e d” that pe rs on is g uilty of cr iminal attempt. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 15.01(a) (Ve rnon 2003).-3-

Appellant does not c ite any authority for the pr oposition t hat the leg islature did not intend for Sec tion 15.01 to apply to capital off

enses, a nd we se e no re ason why

these two provisions cannot be rea d toge ther. Se e Va lad e z v . S tate , 9 79 S.W. 2d

18 , 1 9- 20 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h Di st. ] 199 8, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Hi da lgo v . S tate , 945 S.W .2d 313, 316 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997), aff’d , 9 83 S.W. 2d

74 6 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). B y sh oo tin ghis kid

na pp e d v ic tim s d

ur inga sin g le criminal transa ction, Appellant committed an a ct amountingto more than mer e pre paration for capital murde r. That is, he c ommitt ed the of fense of attempted c apital murder
. See V aladez , 979 S.W .2d at 20. Ther efor e, the tria l court did not err by overr uling Appe llant’s motion to quash the indictment, and I ssue Two is over ruled. In I ssue One, A

ppellant ar g ues the indictment wa s defe ctive bec ause it fa iled to provide him with adequate notice of the off enses he was c harg ed with, fa iled to specify the way the offe nses wer e committed, and f ailed to alleg e fa cts specif ic enough to bar a

subsequent prosec ution for the same offe nses. Appellant’ s entire “ argument” on this point consists of two double-spac ed ty

ped pag es quoting the indictment languag e for eac h of the off

enses he was char g ed with. Appellant then summar ily conclude s the languag e wa s inadequate on var ious g rounds. This section of Appe llant’s brief doe s not contain citation to leg al authority or provide leg al ana ly sis to support Appellant’s position t hat the quoted languag e wa s insufficient. F ailure to adequately

brief a g round of e rror

or to cite to applica

ble authority

prese nts nothing for

revie w. Se e Tod d v . S tate , 9 11 S.W. 2d

80 7, 81 9 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 95 , n o p e t.) ; se e als o T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1 (providing the require ments for a n Appellant’s br ief). A ccor dingly , we
overr ule I ssue One. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d b oth of Ap pe lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-4-

September 30, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. R i v er a, J
. (N o tP art i ci p at i n g) (Do Not Publish)