Case Name: Claudia Kristine ESQUIVEL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.)
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2018-01-25
Citations: 546 S.W.3d 342
Docket Number: NO. 01-16-00301-CR
Parties: Claudia Kristine ESQUIVEL, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Judges: Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Massengale.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 546
Pages: 342–346

Head Matter:
Claudia Kristine ESQUIVEL, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
NO. 01-16-00301-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
Opinion issued January 25, 2018.
Brian W. Wice, 440 Louisiana, Suite 900, Houston, TX 77002-1635, for Appellant.
Jack Roady, Criminal District Attorney-Galveston County, Allison Lindblade, Assist. Criminal District Attorney, 600 59th Street, Ste. 1001, Galveston, TX 77551, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Massengale.
En banc reconsideration was requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.7.
A majority of the justices of the Court voted to deny the motion for en banc reconsideration.
The en banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
Motion for reconsideration en banc denied.
Justice Jennings, joined by Lloyd, J., concurring in the denial of en banc reconsideration with separate opinion.
Justice Lloyd, joined by Jennings, J., concurring in the denial of en banc reconsideration with separate opinion.
OPINION CONCURRING IN DENIAL OF EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Opinion:
Russell Lloyd, Justice, concurring.
This case illustrates what Judge Odom was talking about in Garrett v. State , 573 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the death has been broken out of the homicide and made into a separate offense, which it is not. This is a Penal Code section 19.02(b)(2) case and not a Penal Code section 19.02(b)(3) case. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(2), (3) (West 2011). Appellant admitted pointing a pistol at complainant. This act caused the death of complainant. If she intended to kill or cause serious bodily injury to the complainant when she pointed the pistol, she is guilty of murder. If she committed the act without intent to kill complainant but recklessly pointed the pistol at him, causing his death, she is guilty of manslaughter or some lesser-included offense.
The majority is compelled by Lawson to find that appellant intentionally committed aggravated assault to support a conviction for felony murder. Lawson v. State , 64 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant committed an intentional act but the act was part and parcel of the homicide. The jury should be able to determine the consequences of that act by evaluating the intent with which it was done. The State should not be able to avoid the necessity of proving intent for the homicide by this misuse of the felony murder doctrine.
Due to an unfortunate precedent, I agree that we must deny appellant's motion for en banc reconsideration. However, I join Justice Jennings in urging the Court of Criminal Appeals to revisit this area of Texas jurisprudence and bring clarity, logic, and simplicity to it. Judge Odom did.
OPINION CONCURRING IN DENIAL OF EN BANC RECONSIDERATION