NO. 07-07 -018 8-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 C AU GU ST 4, 2 008

_________

_________

_________

___ ALL EN JOYC E, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF CO CHRAN COU NT Y; NO . 06- 01- 1262; HO NO RA BLE H AR OLD PH ELAN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Al len Jo y ce, appeal s his conv ic ti on for the off ense of prohi bit ed s ex ual condu ct and sent ence of 10 y ears confine ment in the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of t h e T e xas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. W e rev erse, v acat e the j udg ment, a n d r e m a nd for the entr y of a j udg ment of ac q uit tal
.C C w as not a min or at the t ime of the offense and the t est imony at tr ial i denti fied 1 her as M ar a J oy ce. 2 Fac tual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und Appel lan t w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h the o f f e n se of sex ual as saul t. The lan g uag e of the indi ctmentcharg ed that appell ant had on or before t he 1 day of Oct ober st 2005, int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ca used the p enetrati on of the sex ual org an of C C, by de fen da nt ’ s s ex ua l o rg an , w i th ou t th e c on s en t of C C
. The i nd i c tm en t th en , i n th e s am e 1 par a g r a p h , c o n t a i n e d t h e fo l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e , “
. . . a n d C C w a s a p e rs o n w h o m t he defendant w as prohi bit ed from mar ry ing or pur por ti ng to marr

y or w it h w hom the defendant w as prohi bit ed from l iv ing under the appearance of being mar ri ed .
. . .” At t ri al, the Stat e’s attor ney announc ed th at t he St ate a bandoned, w hat h e ter med sur plu sag e, t he addi ti onal por ti on q uoted abov e ex ceptfor t he not ic e tha t i t prov ide s for poss ibl e less er

incl uded of

fenses. Spec ific all y , the State’ s a ttor ney abando ned i t for the cas e i n c hie f and the same w as not re ad to the jur y , nor di d appel lan t ent er

a pl ea to the abandoned por

ti on of the ind ic tment. The tes tim o n y a t tria l show ed th at ap pel lan t w as the u ncl e of the compl ain ing w itness, Mara Joy ce. App ellantand Mara had b een at a relative’s home with othe r fa mily me mb ers d r i nk i ng w he n M ara as k ed a pp el l an t to g i v e he r a r i de t o he r b oyfr i en d’ s h om e a few bl ock s a w ay . Ma ra tes ti fied on directex aminat ion that inst ead of tak ing her to her b o yfr i e n d ’ s h o me , a p p e l l a n tt o ok h e r t o t h e e d g e o f t o w n o n t o a d i rtro a d a tt h e e n d o f a cot ton fie ld and sex ual ly assaul ted her. Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , s he deni ed th at s he had3

off er ed to hav e sex w it h appel lan t for money but did admitthata $2 0 dol lar bi ll w as found in her sh oe and that she had her boyfrie nd bur n i t. M ar a’s tes ti mony w as cont ra dic tor

y on sev er al poi nts , speci fical ly about w hether

or not she had ini ti all y

denied to s her iff’s d eputi es that any as saul t t ook pla ce. Ma ra w as ex amined by medi cal personne l w ho found no si g ns of tra uma or

inju ry . How ev er , t her e w er e tw o s li g ht s cratc hes on M ar a tha t t he depu ti es document ed w it h phot og ra phs. M ar a final ly named appel lan t as her ass ail ant and he w as q uest ion ed by

the deputi es the n ext mor nin g . He gave a written s tatementthatw as int ro duced before the j ur y , w her ein , he admit ted hav ing intercourse w it h Mara but cl aimed itwa s co n s e n s u a l. T h e st a t e m e n ta ls o a ll e ge d t h a ta p p e ll a n th a d p a id M a ra $ 4 0 t o h a ve sex w it h hi m. After both the State and app ell ant h ad rest ed and cl osed the c ase in chi ef, the t ri al cour t prepared a w ri tten charg e tha t i ncl uded t he pr imar y al leg ati on of

sex ual assaul t and a c harg e on the p ur por ted l ess er

i ncl uded offense of prohi bit ed s ex ual conduct
. Pr ior to re a d i n g t h e c h a rg e t o t h e j u r y , a p p e l l a n t ’ s t r i a l c o u n s e l o bj e c t e d t o t h e i n c l usi on of the les ser i ncl uded offense posi ti ng that prohi bit ed sex ual conductw as not a l ess er i ncl uded charg e under

the appl ic abl e l aw . The tr ial co urt ov er ru led the obj ect ion and submi tted the les ser i ncl uded c harg e to the jur y . The ju ry , c onsi ste nt w it h the co urt’ s c harg e, found t he appel lan t g uil ty

of the les ser

i ncl uded offense. The ju ry su bseq uentl y

se ntenc ed appe ll ant to c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for a per iod of 10 y ears. This appeal foll ow ed. In two issues, app ellantalleges that th e trial court com mitt ed r e v ersible error in ins tr uct ing the jur

y thatprohi bit ed s ex ual co nduct w as a less er

i ncl uded offense of sex ual4

assau lt Furthe r, app ellant cont end s tha t the trial court did not have jurisdiction to convict appel lan t of prohi bit ed sex ual condu ct and t hat t he resul ti ng j udg ment of co nv ic ti on i s v oid
. Lesse r Include d Of

fense In de term in in g w het her or notan of fense is a l esser includ ed o f fense w e are g ov er ned by

the re q uirements of ar ti cl e 37.09 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re . Article 37. 09 p rov ides: A n o ffe n s e i s a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e i f: (1 ) iti s e sta bli shed by proof o f t he same or les s than all of the facts required to e stab lish the c o m m ission of the of fense charg ed; (2 ) itdi ff ers from the off ense charg ed onl y i n the respec t t hat a les s ser iou s inj ur

y or ri sk of i nju ry to the same pe rson, proper ty , or publ ic int er est suffices to est abl is h it s c ommis si on; (3 ) itdi ff ers from the off ense charg ed onl y i n the respec t t hat a l ess cu lpa ble mental st ate s uff ic es to es tab li sh it s commi ss ion ; or (4 ) itconsi sts of

an attemptto commi t t he offense ch arg ed or an ot her w is e i ncl uded offense.

T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . § 37 .09 (Vernon 200 6). In app ly ing article 37.09 , w e are g uid ed by

the re centT ex as Cour

t of Cri minal Appeals decis ion in H all v . St ate, w her ein the Cou rtadopt ed th e pl eadi ng approach as the cor re ct method of an alyz ing the is sue of the5

p ropriety for includin g a lesser include d of fense in the court’s charg e to the jury . Ha ll v. Sta te, 2 25 S. W .3d 524 , 535 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 07). In an alyz ing the app lication o f article 37.09, w e eng ag e i n a tw o s tep ap p ro a ch
. F irst, w e mustl ook to t he i ndi ctmentto det ermin e w het her an of fense i s a le sser include d of fense of the alleged of

fense as a matter of law
. Id. This is acc ompli shed by co mpari ng the ele ments of the offense al leg ed in the i ndi ctmentw it h the elements of the potent ial less er

incl uded of

fense. Id. at 53 5- 36. In t he se co nd s tep o f the anal y si s, w e as k w hether there i s e v ide nce that suppo rt s t he g iv ing of the i nst ru cti on to the jur y . Id. at 53 6. In ap ply ing the firs t s tep o f the anal y si s w e are no t concer ned w it h the ev ide nce, r a t h e r w e a r e fo c u s i n g o n t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e me n t s o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t a s mo d i fi e d bythe ind ic tment. I d. Ap p e lla n t w as ind ic ted for the off ense of sex ual as saul t. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 21.011( a) (1 )( A) (Ver non Supp. 2007)
. The cour t’ s charg e correct ly

set fort h the elem ent s of

the ind ictme nt alleged as: (1 ) appel lan t (2) intent iona lly

or know ingly (3 ) caus ed th e penet ra ti on of the sex ual org an of C C by appel lan t’ s s ex ual org an (4) w ithou t the conse nt of CC The el ements of the p ro hib it ed s ex ual co nductas co ntai ned i n the co urt’ s c harg e are: (1 ) appel lan t (2) intent iona lly

or know ingly6

(3) engaged in sexual intercou rse w ith CC (4 ) and app ell ant k new C C to be the daug hter o f a p p ell ant’ s b ro ther

of the w hol e or hal f blood or

by adopt ion
. The charg e proper ly

se t fort h the el ements of prohi bit ed sex ual co nductas defined in the Tex as Penal C ode. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 25 .02 (a)(5) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Next, w e inquire abo ut w het her the elem ent s of the lesse r includ e d o f f e nse a re est abl is hed by

proof of the sa me or l ess than al l the fact s req uired t o e st a bli sh the com mission of

the of fense ch arged. I d. T his is th e esse nce o f the requirem entof

article 37.09( 1) . See T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . § 37.09( 1)
. In the cas e before us the a nsw er is no. The l ess er

i ncl uded offense req uires proof of an addi ti onal el ement no t re q uired to prov e sex ual assaul t. T hat addit ion al el ement is the re lat ion shi p betw een app ell ant a nd CC
. W hil e i t i s t ru e tha t t he ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial di d prov e tha t re lat ion shi p, it is not t h e o bje c to f

t h e in qu iry in t h e f ir s tst e p o f t h e le s s e r i n c lu d e d a n a lys is
. A c c o r d i n g l y , we find th at t he prohi bit ed s ex ual c o n ta ct is not a l ess er i ncl uded offense of sex ual as saul t. T here fore, th e inclusion of the lesse r included of fen s e in the cou rt’s charge w as error. Appel lan t’ s first poi nt i s s ust ain ed. Jur is dic ti on Appel lan t next c ontends that , i nasmuc h as prohi bit ed sex ual condu ct is not a l ess er inc lud ed of

fense of sex ual assaul t, the tri al cour t l ack ed j ur is dic ti on to co nv ic t app ell ant for an offense not charg ed i n the i ndi ctment
. It is ax iomat icthata c ri minal ly ac cus ed has theUn le ss t h e accus ed w aiv es an i ndi ctmentand proceed s o n the bas is of an 2 infor mati on, w hic h i s n ot rele v ant i n the factual patt er n of the ins tant cas e. For pur p o s e s of

this opinio n w e ne ed n ot con sider the ef fect of the St ate ’s 3 “a bandonment ” of the l ang uag e i n q uest ion and w e ex pr ess no o pin ion on t hat i ss ue. 7 ri gh tt o b e t ri e d b a s e d o n a n in d ic t m e n tre t u rn e d b y a G ra n d Ju ry. T EX . C ON ST . art I , § 10; 2 T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . § 1.05 (V er non 2003). The i nv ocat ion of a c our t’ s j ur is dic ti on in a c ri minal ca se is by the re tur n of an ind ic tment. See Gar ci a v . D ial , 596 S.W .2d 5 24, 527 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1980)
. Fur ther , t he tr ial co urt has no jur is dic ti on to co nv ic t a defendant of an of fense not cha rg ed in an indictm entunless th at of fense is a l esser includ ed o f fense of the c ri me cha rg ed. Id. In t he c ase before t he Cou rt t her e i s n o i ndi ctmentch arg ing appel lan t w it h the off ense of prohi bit ed s ex ual con d u ct
. W e hav e al re ady dec ide d the i ss ue of w hether prohi bit e d s e xua l condu ct is a l ess er i ncl uded offense adv ersel y to the S tate’ s p osi ti on. The Stat e, ho w ev er , pos it s t hat a ppel lan t h a d p ro per noti ce becau se of the lan g uag e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e i n d i c t me n t a ft e r t h e c h a rg e o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t
. H o w e v e r , t he 3 Stat e i s mi sta ken in the beli ef that t his g av e appel lan t not ic e tha t he w as sta ndi ng tr ial for the add itiona l of

fense of prohibite d sexual cond uct. T his la n gu a ge , “
. . . and CC w as a person w h o m t h e defendant w as prohi bit ed from mar ry ing or pur por ti ng to marr

y or w it h w hom the defendant w as prohi bit ed from l iv ing under the appearance of being mar ri ed .
. . “ is not par

t of t h e p ro h ib ited s ex ual co nductst atute
. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 25.02( a) (5 ). It is lan g uag e f ro m the sex ual assaul t statu te and refers to off enses under the8

big amyst atute
. See T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 22. 011( e) (2 )( B) , 22. 011( f), an d 25. 01 ( Ver non Supp. 2007)
. Acc ordin g ly , w e find that the t ri al cour t w as w it hout jur is dic ti on to ente r a j udg ment conv ic ti ng appel lan t of an o ff ense not charg ed in the i ndi ctment
. The pur por ted j udg ment is v oid
. Con cl usi on Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t her e w as no proper less er incl uded offense of prohi bit ed sex ual co nductand that the i ndi ctmentdi d notco nta in a c harg e for the o ff ense of prohi bit ed s ex ual co nduct , w e order the jud g ment v acat ed and the cas e re manded for th e entr y of a j udg ment of ac q uit tal to the c harg e of sex ual as saul t.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.