## IN TH E C OU RT OF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS
No. PD-1645-06
DO MI NI QU E L EKI E B L OU

NT , App e lla

nt
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Discre tionary

Review of Ca se 14-04- 00946-CR of the F ourt e e nth

Court of Ap pe a ls, Ha rris C ounty
W O M ACK , J., delive red the opinion of the Court, in w hich K EL L ER , P.J., and P RICE , J OHN S ON , K EAS L ER , H ERV EY , H O L C O MB , and C OCHRAN

, JJ., joined. M EYERS , J., dissented. The que stion in this case is whe ther the a ppellant was g iven ade quate notice that there
wo uld be an is su e of

his us e or

e xhibi tio n o f a

de a dly we a po n in the c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e of burg lary of a ha bit atio n in

wh ic h h e c omm itt e d o r atte mpt e d to c omm it a g gra vate d a ssa

ult
.( Bl ount - 2)

See Ex par t e Pat t ers on , 74 0 S.W
. 2 d 76 6 (T ex. C r. A p p . 19 8 7 ). 1 A n op i ni o n by Judge C l i nt o n ( i d. , at 7 6 7 ) a n n o u n c e d the o rd e r g ra n ting re lief ( s ee i d. , at 778 ) , an d i t was 2 tre a te d b y a n n o ta to rs (a n d to so m e e x te n t b y o the r m e m b e rs o f t h e C o u rt) a s b e ing the o p inio n o f t h e C o u rt, b u t i n f ac t i t wa s no t jo i ne d b y any o t he r m em b er o f t he C o urt. Ju d ge M i l l er fi l ed an o p i nio n for a p l ura l i t y of t hre e ju d ge s, b u t i t wa s c a lled a “c o n c u rr ing ” o p inio n . See i bi d. T he C our t an noun ced t hat Ju dge T eag ue “ concu r s i n r es ul t . ” I bi d. Judge Cam pb el l was un of f i ci al l y r eport ed t o hav e “ concu r r ed i n r es ul t . ” I d. , at 76 6
. T wo m em b ers of t he C o urt d isse n te d , an d o n e d id no t p a rtic ip a te . I d. , a t 778. Ex part e Beck , 76 9 S.W
. 2 d 52 5 , 52 8 (T ex. C r. A p p . 19 8 9 ). 3 This court consider ed the issue of notice twenty

year s ag o in Ex parte Patterson wh e n it gra nte d h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f t o a

pr iso ne r who ha d b e e n c onvic te d o f m ur de r a nd wh os e elig ibilit y for pa role wa s aff

ecte d by the inclusion in the convictingcourt’s judgment of an aff irmative findingthat he used a deadly wea pon. The ba sis for re lief wa s not clear since the 1 Court was fr agmented and the support for the opinions wa s not clearly described. 2 The lac k of cla

rity was made moot within t wo year s when the Court said in anothe r murder c ase, “ L anguag e in Ex parte Patterson is o ve rr ule d to the e xtent of

c on fl ic t w ith[tod ay ’s ] ho ldi ng .” Th at ho ldi ngwa s c a st i n th e se te rm s:

3 The State a

rgues that it is “totally

illogica l for the Applica

nt to contend that an in dic tme nt c ha

rg inghe r w ithc a

us ingthe de ath o f a

n in div idu a l by

sh oo ting him with a gun did not notify her that the gun was a

n object that ‘in the mann e r o f i ts u se or

int e nd e d u se is c a

pa ble of c a us ingde ath o r s e ri ou s b od ily injury .’ Texas Penal Code, § 1.07(a)(11) (B ) ....” Se c tio n 1 .0 7( a )( 11 )( B ), su pr a , p ro vid e s: “ De a dly we a po n” me ans : * * * * * * (B ) any thing that in the manne r of its use or intende d use is capa ble of c a u s i n gd e atho r

s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j ur y. We a g re e wi th t

he State . It is a

pp are nt t hat any a lle g atio n whic h ave rs a death was caused

by a name d w e a

po n o r i ns tr

ume nt nece

ssarily includes an alleg ation that the named w eapon or instrument was, “in the ma nner of its use ... c a pa ble of c a us ing ” (s inc e it did

cause ) death. Thus, applicant had suf ficient no tic e that th e we a

po n a lle g e d is a

de a dly we a po n a nd that he r u se of

a de a dly wea pon would be an issue in the State’ s murder pr osecution. Thus, the c oncer ns( Bl ount - 3)

I d. , at 52 6

– 2 7 (emp hases i n ori gi nal ). 4 G ilb e rt v . S ta te , 76 9 S.W
. 2 d 53 5 , 53 6

– 3 7 (T ex. C r. A p p . 19 8 9 ). 5 P E N A L C ODE § 2 2
. 0 2 (a)( 1 ). 6 I d. , § 2 2
. 0 2 (a)( 2 ). 7 I d. , § 1
. 0 7 (a)( 1 7 )( B ). 8 and individual constitutional gua rante es eluc idated in Ex parte Patterson are satisfied. 4 L ater in the same year , this court extended its reasoningto a ca se in which the indictment alleg ed that the de fenda

nt cause d serious bodily

injury less than death. The Court said: Ap ply ingthe ratio na le fr om Bec k, we hold that appe llant had suffic ient notice that use of a deadly wea pon would be a f

act issue at his trial. Under § 1.07(a)(11) (B ), a de a dly we a po n is “ any

thi ngthat in

the mann e r o f i ts u se or

int e nd e d u se is capa ble of c ausing... serious bodily injury .” As noted e arlier , the indictment alleg ed that appe llant “ca used serious bodily

injury” to complainant by placing him in hot l iquid. This langua g e in the indictment nec essarily includes an a lleg ation that the hot liqui d in this case, water, wa s a dea dly wea pon beca use “in the manner of its use [the water w as ca pable of ] caus[i ng ] serious bodily injury .” Thus, appellant ha d sufficie nt notice that the natur e of the wea pon alleg ed in the indictment would be an issue at trial and that the State may seek a n aff irmative findingon the use of the wea pon. 5 L ikewise, the Bec k

rationale extends to the ca se bef ore us in which the indictment alleg ed
a burg lary of a ha bit atio n in

wh ic h, a ft e r e nte ri ng , th e a pp e lla nt “ c omm itt e d a

nd atte mpt e d to commit a felony

of ag g ravated assault.” Ag g ra vate d a ssa

ult may be c omm itt e d in

on ly tw o w ay s: ( 1) by

“ c a us [ing ] se ri ou s b od ily injury” or (2) by

“us[ing] or exhibi t[ ing] a de adly wea pon duringthe commission of the 6 assault.” Eac h of these involves the use of a deadly wea pon. The fir st way

nece ssarily

implies 7 the us e of a de a dly we a po n, wh ic h is “ any

thi ngthat in

the mann e r o f i ts u se or

int e nd e d u se is
c a pa ble of c a us ingde ath o r s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y .” Th e se c on d w ay

sp e c if ie s th e us e of

a de a dly 8( Bl ount - 4)

B lo u n t v. S ta te , 20 1 S.W
. 3 d 17 0 , 17 3 (T ex. A p p . — H o ust o n [14 t h D i st . ] 20 0 6 ). 9 wea pon. There fore an alleg ation that a def endant c ommitt ed ag gravated assault g ives him notice that the dea dly

nature of the we apon alleg ed in the indictment would be a n issue at trial and that the State may

seek a n aff irmative findingon the use of the wea pon. The Court of Appe als err ed in holding that “the appe llant was g iven no written notice of any kind[ ,] and no refe renc e to a de adly wea pon was made in the indictment.” 9 The judgment of the Court of Appe als is reve rsed, a nd the judg ment of the District Court is affirme d. Deliver ed Jul y

2, 2008. Publis h.