i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 57 6- CR Ma nu e l RA NG EL , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-0985 Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 2, 2010 AF F I RME D I

N PA RT; VA CA TE D I

N PA RT Manuel Rang el appea ls his conviction on six counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and three
c ounts of a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing . In h is s ole iss ue , Rang e l a sse rt s his ri g ht to be fr e e fr om d ou ble jeopar dy was violated w hen he was convicted of t hree counts of agg ravated kidnapping arising out of a sing le cr iminal transaction involving a single victim. The S t ate c oncede s the indictment
erro n eo u s l y

al l ege d al t ern at e a ggra v at i n g fa ct o rs as th re e s ep ar at e co u n t s o f a ggra v at edk i dn ap p i n g. We a g re e , a

nd va c a te the jud g me nts on

tw o o f t he a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ingc ounts
.04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 2- F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND The c harg es ag ainst Rang el arose out of an encounte r wit h a woman at a pa rty on the nig ht and ea rly morning of Nove mber 9-10, 2007. Ra ng el and Va lerie F uentes met at a n i gh t club, and la te r l e ft the c lub tog e the r an d we nt to an a ft e r- pa rt y a t Ra ng e l’ s f ri e nd s’ s h ou se . Ra

ng e l of fe re d to drive F uentes home a

nd they left at approximately 3:30 a .m. As Rang el was drivingFue ntes home, he turne d into a wooded a rea , telling F uentes he wanted to talk. When F uentes stated she wanted to go home , Rang el bec ame violent, punching her and beating her with his belt. Range l threate ned to kill Fuentes if she did not do what he wante d. Rang el t hen forced Fuente s to remove he r clothes
and se xua lly a ssa ult e d h e r. Whe n Fu e nte s trie d to run awa y , Ran g e l ca

ug ht he r an d pla c e d his b e lt
aro un d h e r n e c k li ke a

le a shbe fo re fo rc inghe r b a c k in to th e car. Ra ng e l dr ov e to h is a pa rtme nt, forc ing F uentes to pe rfor

m or al sex on him a s he drove ; he ag ain threatened to kill her if she stopped. On c e in h is a

pa rtme nt, Rang e l a g a in s e xua lly a ssa ult e d F ue nte s; he the n la id b a c k a nd pa sse d o ut. Fue ntes was a

ble t o put on her clothes and leave the a partment, runningto a nea rby Shell ga s station wher e she locked herse lf in the restroom. A customer c alled 911, and w hen police a rrived F uentes direc ted them to the unlocked a partment whe re the y

found Rang el passed out n ak ed o n t h e bed. Fue ntes identified Rang el as he r attac ker. Rang el was indicte d on six counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and three co unts of ag g ravated kidnapping arising out of the e v en t s on November 10, 2007. At trial, Rang el testified that F ue nte s w a s th e se xua l a g g re sso r a nd the y ha d r ou g h c on se ns ua l se x sev e ra l ti me s th a t ni g ht– at the par ty , in the woo d s , an d at his apar tment. Rang el stated F uentes be came ang ry when she
rea liz ed he ha d a g irlfriend. The ju ry convicted Ra

ng el on all nine counts. The court a ssessed04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 3- punis hme nt a

t tw e nty y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt on e a c h c ount, to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y . N ine se pa

rate judgme nts were enter ed. Rang el timely appea led. A N A L Y SIS On appe al, Rang el only challeng es his conviction on the thre e counts of a g g ravated kidnapping . He c ontends that he has rec eived multipl e punishments f or the same offe nse in violation of the Double J eopar dy

Clause containe d in the st at e and fe dera l constituti ons. See U.S. C O N ST . ame nd s. V, XIV; T EX . C O N ST . a rt . I , § 14 ; Il lin ois v . V

ita le , 4 47 U. S. 4 10 , 4 15 (1 98 0) ; Lo p e z v. Sta te , 108 S.W .3d 293, 295-96 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). A double jeopa rdy claim may

be ra ised for the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l if : ( 1) the un dis pu te d f

a c ts s ho w the do ub le je op ard y violation is c le a rl y appar ent on the fa ce of

the re cord; and (2) enforc ement of the rules of procedura l defa ult would serve no leg itimate state interest. Go nz ale z v . S tat e , 8 S. W.3 d 6 40 , 6 43 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). Th e Sta te
conce des that those re quirements ar e met in this case, a nd we a g ree . Th e tw o b a sic e le me nts of a g gravat e d k idn a

pp ingare (1 ) i nte nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly abductinganother

person, i.e., kidnapping, and (2) commission of an ag g ravating f actor
. Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 512, 521 (Tex. C ri m. App. 2009). The e lements of kidnappingare that the defe ndant intentionally

or knowing ly

restra ined the v ictim with the intent to prevent liberation by using or threatening to use deadly forc e. Pa dg e tt v . S

tat e , 683 S.W .2d 453, 456 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1983, no pet.). A kidnappingrises to the leve l of an a g g ravated offe nse when the abduc tion is committ ed with either the spec ifi c i n tent to acc omplish one of six purposes, or the use or exhibi tion of a deadly wea pon during the offense. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 20.04(a) , (b) ( Ver non 20 03 ); Laster , 275 S.W .3d at 521. The six s pecif ic purposes a

re: (1) to hold the victim for ransom
o r r e w ar d ; ( 2 ) t o u s e t h e v i c t i m a s a s h i e l d o r h o s t a g e ; ( 3 ) t o f

a c i l i t a t e t h e c o m m i s s i o no f a f e l o n y,04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 4- or flig ht after

the attempt or c ommissi on of a f el o n y ; (4 ) to inflict bodily injury on the victim, or violate or a

buse the victim sexually ; ( 5) to terror ize the victim or a third person; or ( 6) to interfe re with the perf

ormanc e of a g overnme ntal or political f unction. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 20.04(a) ; Pa dg e tt , 683 S.W .2d at 457 (a g g ravating c ircumstance under se ction 20.04(a) which raises level of culpability

from kidnappingto ag g ravated kidnapping is presenc e of one of six specific intents at the time of abduc tion). Ag g ravated kidnapping is a result-or iented off ense, w ith the ultim ate issue be ing the abduction of the victim, i.e., the result. Ph illips v . S tat e , 597 S.W .2d 929, 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 80 ); Go nz ale

s v. S tat e , 270 S.W .3d 282, 288 (Tex. A pp.—Amarillo 2008, pet. re f’d) . There fore , the “ a llo wa

ble un it of pr os e c uti on ” fo r an a g g ra vate d kidn a

pp ing of fe ns e c or re la te s to e a c h v ic tim abducte d; in other words, the State ma y prosec ute a pe rson for e ach vic tim kidnapped, not for the number of a g g ravating f

actor s that may

be pre sent. Gonzales , 270 S.W. 3d a t 28 8; Al

v ar e z v . S tat e , No . 0 4- 08 -0 05 37 -C R, 2 00 9 WL 2045 20 4, a t *2 -3 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio July

15 , 2 00 9, pe t. dismiss ed) ( mem. op., n o t d esi g nated f or publication) ( adopting the re asoning in Gonzales ). I t is
we ll e sta bli sh e d th a t t he S tat e may ple a d a lte rn a te “ mann e r a nd me ans ” of

c omm itt inga

sin g le offe nse when the s tatute provides for diff ere nt modes or means of

committing the off

ense, a nd jury unanimity

is not required on a

ny specific “manne r and me ans.” W ill is v . S tat e , 34 Tex. Crim . 148, 29 S.W. 78 7, 78 8 ( 18 95 ); J e ffe rso n v . S

tat e , 189 S.W. 3d 30 5, 31 2- 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). Thus , when the State a lleg es one vic tim and seeks a sing le conviction for aggr av ated kidnapping, but alleg es seve ral a lternat e agg ravating f actor s in the indictment, the jury can c onsider all the ag g ravating f

actor s alleg ed and r eturn a gen er al verdic t of g uilty for the of

fense of ag g ravated kidnapping
. Gonzales , 2 70 S.W. 3d a t 28 8- 89 ; se e Fran k

lin v . S tat e , 6 0 6 S. W. 2 d

8 1 8 , 8 2 1 ( T e x.04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

1 ... T h e fi rs t six c o u n ts o f t h e ind ic tm e n t f o rm the b a sis fo r R a n g e l’s co n v ic tio n s fo r a g g ra v a te d se x u a l as sa u lt a n d a re no t ch a llen g e d o n a p p e a l.

2 ... Th e i n d i c t m e n t m i s t a k e n l y u s e d t h e w r o n g R o m a n n u m e r a l f o r t h e n i n t h c o u n t , l i s t i n g i t a s “ C o u n t VI X” ins te a d o f C o u n t IX . W e w ill re fer to the nin th c o u n t usin g it s p ro p e r n u m b e rin g a s “C o u n t IX .”

- 5- Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); se e als o D ic k so n v . S tat e , N o s . 0 2

- 0 8

- 0 0 0 5 0

- CR & 0 2

- 0 8

- 0 0 0 5 1

- CR , 2 0 0 9 WL 976019, at *7 (Te x . App.—For t Worth April 9, 2009, pet. ref’ d) (not desig nated f or publication). He re , a ll n ine c ounts 1 alleg ed in the indictment ar ose out of one c ontinuous criminal episode betwee n Rang el and F uentes on November 10, 2007. The fa ce of the indictment clea

rly shows that C o u n t s V II, V III , an d

IX 2 all ege a

sin g le of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ingc omm itt e d a g a ins t a single victim on November 10, 2007, but with three alternate ag g ravating f actor s. Specifica lly , the thr e e c ounts a lle g e Rang e l int e nti on a lly and kn ow ing ly a bd uc te d F ue nte s wi th the sp e c if ic int e nt t o vio la te and

a bu se he r s e xua lly

(C ount V I I ), to in fl ict bod ily inj ur y on he r ( Count V I I I ), and

to terror ize her (Count I X). See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 20 .0 4(a) (4) , (5) . The thr e e c ounts a lso alleg e anothe r alter

nate a g g ravat i n g fa ct o r–t hat Rang el used or e x hibited a dea dly wea pon during commission of the offe nse. See id. § 2 0
. 0 4 ( b )
. A s th e St a te c o n c e d e s , Ra n g e l’ s in d ic tm e nt
err oneously

labeled the alleg ations of d if f e r e nt ag g ravating f

actor s, i.e., alternate manner s and mea ns of c omm itt inga

sin g le a g g ra

vate d k idn a

pp ingof fe ns e , a s se parate c ounts ins te a d o f s e pa rate para g raphs of

a si ng le count. See G onzales , 270 S.W .3d at 288 (indictment may contain as ma

ny para g raphs a s nece ssary

to alleg e the va

rious manner

and mea ns of committing one a lleg ed off ense) ; Fo wle r v . S

tat e , 240 S.W. 3d 27 7, 28 0 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin , 200 7, pe t. re f’ d) (g e ne ra lly , a “ c ount” char g es the o ff

en s e i t s el f, and a

“par ag raph” is the part of a count that alleg es the method of
c omm itt ingthe of

fe ns e ); W atk ins v . S tat e , 9 46 S.W. 2d

59 4, 60 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Worth 19 97 , p e t. ref ’d) (the substance of the alleg ation in indictment, rathe r than the label attached , d eter mines04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 6- w h e th e r an a l l e g a t i o n i s a c o u n t o r a p ar a g r a p h )
. G i v e n t h e e r

r o r i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , w e mu s t n e xt de te rm ine the a

pp ro pr ia te re me dy

on a pp e a l. As a re sult of the err or in the indictment, instead of be ing c onvicted of a nd punished for a single count of a g g ravated kidnapp i n g, R an g el was c onvicted of thre e counts of a g g ravated kidnapping and re ceive d three s ep arate punishments of 20 y ear s eac h, althoug h the sentenc es run
c on c ur re ntl y . T he pa

rt ie s a g re e that Rang e l is e nti tle d to re lie f and that th e pr op e r r e me dy

fo r t his ty pe of d o u b le je o p ar dy

v io lati o nis to v a c a te th e ju d g me n ts o ntw o o f th e a g g r a v a te d

k id n a p ping

“ c ounts .” Re cogni z ingthat a ll thr e e “ c ounts ” of a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ingare e qu a lly

se ri ou s f ir st deg ree felonies f

or which the same 20-y ear sentenc e wa s imposed, Rang el and the State a g ree that the judg ments on the last two counts, “Count VI I I ” and “ Count I X,” should be vacated. See B igon
v . S tat e , 252 S.W. 3d 36 0, 37 2- 73 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) (w he n d e fe nd ant i s su bje c te d to mul tip le punis hme nts fo r th e same c on du c t in vio la tio n o f d ou

ble je op ard

y pr oh ibi tio n, the re me dy

is t o aff irm the conviction for

the most serious offense and vac ate the othe r convic tions). We ag ree that
v a c a t i n g t h e j u d g m e n t s o nC o u n t s V II I a n d IX i s t h e a

p p r o p r i a t e r e m e dy. The pa rties disag ree as to whethe r the judg ment on the re main i n g co unt of ag g ravated kidnapping should be ref ormed. Ra n gel requests that we pe rmit the judgme nt on the rema ining
a g g r a v a t e d

k i dn a p p i n g c o u n tt o s t an d a s i t i s , r e f l e c t i n g a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t o f “ g u i l t y ” o nC o u n tV II. The State re quests that we r efor m the judgme nt on Count VII t o re fl ec t t he jury finding s on the alternative ag g ravating fac t o rs i n re nderingthree verdic ts of “g uilty .” Se e Bi gle yv . S tat e , 865 S.W .2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (stating that the appellate court has power to re form i n c o r r e c t j u d g m e n t s )
. N o t i n g t h a t t h e j u r y r e tu r n e d t h r e e s e p ar a t e v e r d i c t s f

i n d i n g R an g e l “ g u i l t y” of all the alternative means of committing a g g ravated kidnapping , the State sug g ests that we “ ref orm04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 7- the jud g me nt o n the re ma ini ngso le c ount o f a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ingto r e fl e c t th e jur

y ’s un anim ity on the three alternate m anner s and means of committing the of fense by subsuming the mislabele d ‘counts’ a s ‘ p ar a g r a

p h s ’ u n d e r c o u n t V I I
. ” I n s u p p o rt o f it s r e qu e s t, th e St a te r e li e s s olely on W atk ins v . S tat e , 946 S.W .2d 594, 602 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1997, pet. ref’d) . Howeve r, W atkins does not support the S tate’s position. I n W atkins , the appe llant argued sepa rate verdic ts should have been r eturne d on eac h of four “counts” alleg ing a g g ravated sexual assault. Id. at 600. The c ourt deter mi ned that ea ch purpor

ted “c ount” simply

alleg ed a dif

fer ent method of c ommitt ing the offe nse, howeve r, a n d t h us the four “ counts” we re r eally four “ para g raphs” of one c ount. Id. at 601. The court noted that improperly labeling para g raphs a s counts does not transfor m them int o “counts.” Id. (h old ingthat th e po rt ion s o f i nd ic tme nt t hat a lle g e a lte rn a te me ans of com mittin g the same offe nse re main “par ag raphs” reg ardle ss of the terms used in prepa ring the i ndictment). R elying on Aguir re v . S tat e , in which the Court of Criminal Appea ls held a g ene ra l verdic t is proper whe re differ ent way s of commi tting the same offe nse ar e alleg ed, the W atkins court re formed the trial court’s judg ment stating, “ Gene ral Ve rdict of Guilty Counts One, T wo , T h re e, Four ” to instead
mere ly ref lect a ge nera l verdict of “ Guilty ” of a g g ravated sexual assault. Id. at 601-02 (c iting Aguir re v . S tat e , 732 S.W .2d 320, 326-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 1987)). I n Rang e l’ s c a se , the jur

y re tur ne d thr e e se pa

ra te ve rd ic ts fi nd ing him g uil ty of thr e e “ c ounts ” of ag g ravated kidnapping , and thre e sepa rate judgme nts refle cting a g ener al ver dict of “guilty ” we re
e nte re d. As a lle g e d in

the ind ic tme nt, and

su bmi tte d in

the jur y c ha rg e , ea c h o f t

he thr e e “ c ounts ” contained two, a lternative a g g ravating f actor s submitt ed in the disjunctive–use of a de adly wea pon, or poss ession of a particula r specific i ntent. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 20.04(a) , (b). B ased on the re turn of a g ener al ver dict, we a re una ble to de termine which theory formed the basis of the jury ’s04

- 09

- 00 57 6- CR

- 8- verdic t; indee d, jury unanimity as to w hich particula r ag g ravating fac tor exis ted was not re q u ired under a g ener al ver dict. See J

efferson , 189 S.W .3d at 312-13; Aguir re , 7 32 S.W. 2d

a t 32 6; se e als o Gonzales , 270 S.W .3d at 288-89 (holding that wher e indictment alleg ed ag g ravated kidnapping of one victim with four diffe rent ag g ravating f actor s, jury

unanimity

was not re quired a s to the ag g ravating f

actor and g ener al ver dict of g uilty was a p p ropriate ). Ther efor e, it would not be app ro p ri at e to reform the judg ment on Count VI Ito refle ct jury finding s as to a par

ticular
a g g ra vatin g fa c tor . T he jud g me nt o n th e re ma ini ng c ount of a g g ra vate d k idn a

pp ing , Co un t V I I , is
c o r r e c ti nt h a ti ts i m

p l y r e f l e c t s a g e n e r a l v e r d i c to f

g u i l t y. Acc ording ly , based on the fore g oing a naly sis, the trial court’s judgme nts on Counts VI I Iand I X ar e vac ated, a

nd the judg ments on Counts I throug h VI Iare aff irmed.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

DO NOT PUBL I SH