NO. 07-07 -014 1-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 OC TOBER16, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DA NI EL R EY , Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B16 837 -060 6; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion on Motion f

or Reconside ration En Banc

_________

_________

_________

____ Before the Court EN BANC A maj or ity

of the e n bancco urt orders en banc reco nsi derati on of the cour t’ s p ri or opi nio n. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 49.7. Ac cordin g ly , w e w ith d ra w the p anel ’s opi nio n and jud g ment and su bst it ute t he foll ow ing

. Dan iel R ey

appeal s h is co nv ict io n for abandoni ng or endang er ing a c hil d, cont end ing that the ev iden ce is legally and factu ally

insuf f icient to supp ort it. W e reverse the j udg ment.2

Back gr ound App ellantw as ma rried to M ichelle M orales w ith w hom he fath ered a one -y ear-old daug hter

. Mo ra les also had a three- y ear-o ld son from a pr ior rela ti onshi p. Appel lan t had been s eparated from M orale s s inc e N ov ember 2 005, how ev er . She l iv ed i n Pl ain v iew
w hil e he li v ed i n M ule shoe. O n F ebr uar y 23, 2006, appel lan t phoned Mo ra les and tol d her he was g oing to v isit. He arr iv ed a t h e r a p a rt m e n t a roun d 12 :30 a.m . and hea rd his daugh te r crying

. Throug h the w ind ow , he coul d al so see his st epson , but , w hen he knoc ked on th e do or , no one ans w er ed. At t hat p oin t, the t hr ee- y ear-o ld boy i nformed appel lan t that his mother w as not there. In respon se, appel lan t broke the front w ind ow to obtain a cc e ss to the a bode, took hi s d aug hter

from t he apar

tment, and drov e her

to Mu les hoe. H e c lai med he left the boyw it h a nei g hbor . How ev er , t he nei g hbor i n q uest ion , Rami ra Gamboa, tes ti fied th at he found the boy st andi ng outs ide the s e co nd floor apar tment near

the broken g las s d re ss ed onl y i n jea ns and a shi rt (n o shoes or soc ks ) on the c old ni g ht s creaming for his father. Gamboa broug ht the chi ld int o his apar tment. A subs eq uent inv est ig ati on of M orale s’ apar tment uncov er ed no one el se pr esent

. Appl ic able Law Ap e rs o n co m m it s t h e o f fe n s e fo r wh ic h a p p e ll a n twa s c o n vic t e d if , h a vin g c u s t o d y, care, or co ntrol of a chi ld y oung er than 15 y ears, he int enti onal ly abandons the chi ld in any pla ce under

ci rc umsta n ce s that ex pose the c hil d to an unreason abl e r is k o f harm. T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . §22 .04 1(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 6). To aba ndo n me ans to leave a child in any pl ace w it hout prov idi ng the y outh re asona ble and neces sar y ca re , und er cir cu m st a n ce s whic h no rea so n a b le sim ila rly sit u a te d a d u lt wou ld le a ve a ch ild of th a t a geT h e r e a s o n g iv e n b y a p p e lla n t f o r n o t t a k in g h is s te p s o n w ith h im w a s th a t h e w a s n o t t h e b o y’s 1 fa th e r a n d h e w a s a fr a i d h i s w i fe w o u l d fi l e c h a rg e s o n h i m . 3 and abi li ty

. Id. §22.041( a)

. The is sue before us inv olv es the elementof cu sto dy , c are, or cont ro l. Ap pel lan t as ser ts that there i s n o ev ide nce he had suc h ov er hi s s teps on. W hil e §22. 041 doe s n ot define “c ust ody , care, or co ntrol, ” the p re cedi ng se cti on of the P enal C ode i nv olv ing i nju ry to a c hil d does . It prov ide s t hat o ne has as sumed care, cus tody , or

co ntrol “i f he has by

ac t, w ords, or

co urse of conduc t ac ted s o as to cause a re asona ble p e rso n to conc lud e tha t he has acc epted re spons ibi li ty for p ro tec ti on, food, shelte r, and m edica l care for a child

. . . .” Id. §22.04( d) ; Hawk ins v. Sta te, 891 S. W .2d 257, 2 58- 59 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994)

. Thus, the d uty does not hav e to be one impos ed under the Fami ly Cod e to fall w it hin the penal prov is ion as appel lan t arg ues. Haw kins v. State, 891 S. W .2d a t 258- 59. Appl ic ati on of Law toF

act s The r ecord before us rev eal s t hat a ppel lan t w as sti ll mar ri ed to the c hil d’s mother at t he ti me of the i nci dent and that he had cared for the c hil d i n the pas t. So too h ad he ack now led g ed to a w or ker for C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es (C PS) thathe h ad been a pa rtof the c hil d’s l ife. Thus , ev ide nce ex is ted c ontradi cti ng ap p e l l a n t ’s represent ati on th at he had 1 not “ fostered [a] famili al re lat ion shi p w it h the ch il d” i n the pas t. Y et, w e c annot ig nore tha t appel lan t l iv ed el sew here, no t w it h his est ra ng ed w ife and the tw o chi ldren, and t hat h e had been sep a ra ted f ro m hi s w ife for approx imat ely three month s. N or

ca n w e i g nore tha t appel lan t w as not t he father of the c hil d he left be hin d butthe ste pfather. The par ti es hav e c it ed us to no ca ses su g g est ing thata s tepparent w ho no lon g er liv es in the hou seho ld has th e ob lig ation of custod y or assum ed th e respo nsibility to careI n t e r e s t i n g l y , we n o t e t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t we e n t h e t e s t u s e d i n § 2 2

. 0 4 1 ( b ) a n d t h a t a p p l i e d i n case s 2 i nv ol v i ng t he possessi on ofdr ugs. Li k e t he f or m er , t he l at t er al so r equi r es pr ooft hat t he dr ugs wer e i n t he c a re , c u s to d y , o r c o n tro l o f t h e a c c u s e d a s a p re re q u i s i te to c o n v i c ti o n . P o in d e x te r v . S ta te , 153 S. W

. 3d 4 02, 405 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 20 05)

. I fone was t o sub st i t ut e dr ugs f or t he t hr ee- y ear - ol d, a r at i onal j ur y woul d be h a rd -p re s s e d to c o n c l u d e th a t a p p e l l a n t p o s s e s s e d th e c o n tra b a n d s i m p l y b e c a u s e h e e n te re d th e h o m e to re m o v e th e c h i l d fro m i ts p re s e n c e . 4 and control over stepch ild simp ly beca use h e ma y be a ste ppa rent. Nor is there evidence tha t app ellantprovi ded any type of f inan cial, me dical, or ph y sical supp ort for the ste pchild eit her before or

after appel lan t mov ed to M ule shoe. T hatapp ellant ’s condu ct w as repreh ensib le is b eyond dispu te. B ut, if anything, it
ev inc ed a compl ete dis re g ard for the st epchi ld. Ag ain , he saw the tw o c hil dr en al one i n the house but entered onl y to sec ur e his ow n chil d. The other simpl y w as left be hin d to fend for hi msel f, acc ordin g to the e v ide nce acc epted by the jur y . W hil e s u ch c o n d u ct may arg uabl y ev inc e acti v ity

pote nti all y

cr imi nal under

§22. 041( c) of the Tex as Penal C ode (c ri minal iz ing an a cti on or omi ss ion thatex poses a c hil d under 15 t o i mminentdang er of dea th, b odily injuryor physical or me nta l imp airme nt), tha t is not the provi sion un der w hich the S tate opted to prosec ute h im. I n st e a d , i t c hose a penal st atute thatobl ig ated itto prov e he firs t assumed the care, cust ody , or control of the chi ld and then aba ndoned the y outh. 2 Si mply

put, the r ecord is ber eft of any ev ide nce il lus trati ng that appell ant a cc epted the respon sibility

to prote ct, she lter, feed a nd care for t he three -y ear-old. T his is of impo rt beca use th e stat us of

stepp aren t alon e do es no t o b li ga te th e step pare nt to care for his step child. Rathe r, the ste ppa rent m ust “receive” the child into th e fam ily or acceptthe child
as a famil y

member before suc h obl ig ations ar is e. Mc Gee v . McGe e , 936 S.W .2d 3 60, 369 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1996, w ri t den ied ); You ngb lood v. Hoeffle , 201 S.W . 105 7, 10 585

(Tex . C iv . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 18, n o w ri t)

. W he n th ato c c urs , th e pa r en t s ta nds in loco pare ntis tow ards the c hil d, an d the re lat ion shi p w it h it s acc ompany ing duti es cont inu es as lon g as the chi ld re mains par t of t h e f a m ily

. Id

. Here, t he record fail s t o di sc los e tha t appel lan t recei v ed th e three -yea r-o ld in to t he famil y . Nor do w e k now

w hether

any r e l a t i o n s h i p o f in loco p a re ntis w hich m ay have arisen con tinue d after app ellantand his
w ife b e c a me e s t r a n g e d a n d a p p e l l a n t mo v e d a w a y mo n t h s e a r l i e r . Th a t t h e c h i l d may have called for hi s fath er or dadd y af ter app ellantlef

t doe s not f ill the v oid for w e w ould hav e to ass ume that the ch il d notonl y referred to appel lan t butal so came t o c all appel lan t his fath er beca use a ppe llant trea ted him like a fam ily mem ber. But , again, the record lacks
ev ide nce est abl is hin g ei ther ci rc umstan ce. Si mil ar ly def ic ien t is thatev ide nce ind ic ati ng appel lan t w as par

t of the chi ld’ s “l ife.” W hether thatmeant prov idi ng for a nd protec ti ng the y out h or me rely bein g prese nt from time to time goes un me ntion ed, and w ithou t evi den ce describin g w hatthe wi tne ss mea nt w hen using thatterm we can only consid er the p hrase too innocu ous to constit u t e a n y e v iden ce of app ellanttreating the three-year-old as pa rt of the famil y . Ir re spec ti v e of the re ason under ly ing the Stat e’s dec is ion to inv oke §22.041 (b ) as oppos ed to §22. 041( c) , i t c hose the former

. Thus, itw as re q uired to prov e eac h el ement of the of fense . It failed in th is reg ard by omitting to esta blish the elem entof app ellant ’s
acc epti ng the re spons ibi li ty for c ar e, c ust ody , or

co ntrol of the th re e- y ear-o ld

. So, w hen read in a lig ht m ost favorable to the v erdict, the record con tains n o evidence upo n w hich
a rati onal j u ry coul d c oncl ude bey ond reason abl e doubtthatappel lan t c ommitt ed th e off ense desc ri bed in §22.041 (b ) of t he Penal C ode. See Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 ,6

1 3 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( d is c u s s in g t h e a p p li c a b le st a n d a rd o f re vie w). An d , we h a ve no c hoi ce but t o rev erse the j udg ment of the tri al cour t and render

j udg ment ac q uit ti ng appel lan t of thatoffense.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.