IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00213-CR

FERNANDO JUAREZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34946-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Fernando Juarez was convicted of the offense of capital murder and sentenced to 

life in prison without the possibility of parole. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 

2011). On original submission, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See 

Juarez v. State, No. 10-11-00213-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9293 (Tex. App.—Waco July 

25, 2013). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed this Court's decision regarding 

preservation of Juarez's complaint relating to his mandatory sentence of life without 

parole. See Juarez v. State, PD-1049-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 666 (Tex. 
Juarez v. State Page 2

Crim. App. July 23, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the complaint did 

not have to be preserved at the trial court and remanded the proceeding to this Court 

for reconsideration in light of the decision in Lewis v. State and Nolley v. State, 428 

S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Id.

In reversing this proceeding, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained its 

holding in Lewis and Nolley:

The juvenile offenders in those cases were both sentenced to mandatory 

life without the possibility of parole. The courts of appeals in both cases 

affirmed the convictions but reformed the sentences to life imprisonment 

under Miller. We granted review in both cases to decide whether, under 

Miller, a juvenile offender is entitled to an individualized sentencing 

proceeding when faced with a sentence of life with the possibility of 

parole. The Court consolidated the cases and issued one opinion holding 

that Miller is limited to a prohibition on mandatory life without parole for 

juvenile offenders; thus, juvenile offenders sentenced to life with the 

possibility of parole are not entitled to individualized sentencing under 

the Eighth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgments of the courts 

of appeals.

Juarez, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 666 at *3 (discussing Miller v. Alabama, 567 

U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)).

Juarez complains that his sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole is unconstitutional. Both the State and Juarez concede in their letter 

briefs on remand that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Lewis and Nolley

mandate that this Court reform the sentence in Juarez's judgment to life with the 

possibility of parole. Pursuant to the holding of the Court of Criminal appeals in Lewis

and Nolley, Juarez's sentence of life without parole is hereby reformed to a sentence of 
Juarez v. State Page 3

life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. As reformed, the 

trial court's judgment is affirmed.1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Reformed; Affirmed as Reformed

Opinion delivered and filed October 9, 2014

Do Not Publish

[CRPM]

 

1 The scope of this opinion is limited to the issue remanded from the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because 

we resolved Juarez's other issues in our prior opinion, we will not address them here. See Juarez v. State, 

No. 10-11-00213-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9293 (Tex. App.—Waco July 25, 2013).