Court Opinion

ID: 4049526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:59:25.96642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:12.530843
License: Public Domain

<
                                                                                               ^\ll/
                                                                                  TRN# 9076144397

                                         Cause No. F01-59398-P
                                A1 .V <*.»
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                 IN THE 203rd JUDICIAL
                                        Hz?

VS.                                                                DISTRICT COURT OF

LICHO ESCAMELLA                                                    DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
FRANCISCO JESUS HERNANDEZ
SID# 06223792
                      JUDGMENT ON PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BEFORE JURY
                     PUNISHMENT BY JURY - NO COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

                                              JULY TERM, 2002
JUDGE PRESIDING: Lana McDaniel                             DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 31, 2002
ATTORNEY FOR STATE: Steve Tokoly                           ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: Brook Busbee
                               Fred Burns                                                        Wayne Huff
                               Howard Blackmon

OFFENSE CONVICTED OF: Capital Murder - Police Officer
DEGREE: A Capital Felony                                   COMMITTED ON: 11/25/01
CHARGING INSTRUMENT: Indictment                            PLEA: NOT GUILTY
VERDICT: GUILTY AS CHARGED                                 FOREMAN: Thomas Bouse
DEADLY WEAPON FINDING: The jury finds that Defendant herein used orexhibited a deadly
                                    weapon during the commission of said offense, to wit: a firearm
PUNISHMENT ASSESSED BY: Jury - see special issues attached hereto and incorporated by reference
DATE SENTENCE IMPOSED:              October 31, 2002       COSTS: YES
PUNISHMENT AND PLACE OF CONFINEMENT:                       Death. Confinement in the Institutional Division
                                                          of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice until
                                                          sentence of death is carried out.
DATE TO COMMENCE: Date of execution to be determined at a later date.
CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED: 11/25/01 - 10/31/02
On this day set forth above, theabove styled and numbered cause came to trial. The state ofTexas and defendant
appeared by and through the above-named attorneys and announced ready for trial. Defendant appeared in
person in open court. Defendant in open court was duly arraigned, and entered the above shown plea. The
defendant was admonished by the court ofthe consequences ofthe said plea and defendant persisted in entering
saidplea, and it plainly appearingto the court that defendant is mentally competent and said plea is free and
voluntary, the said plea was accepted by the court and is now entered ofrecord as the plea herein of defendant.
Thereupona jury was duly selected, impaneled and sworn, who having heard the indictment presented and
defendant's pleathereto, and having heard the evidence submitted, and, having been duly charged bythe court as
to their duty to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and after having heardthe arguments of
counsel retired in charge ofthe proper officer to consider their verdict. Afterward thejury was brought into
open court by the proper officer, defendant and his counsel being present, and in due form oflaw returned into
open court the above shownverdict which was received and accepted by the court, and is here and now entered
upon the minutes of the court.

Thereupon, the defendant having previously elected to have punishment assessed by the jury, the jury heard
evidence related to the question of punishment. Thereafter, thejury retired to consider such question, and,
after having deliberated, the jury was brought back into open court by the proper officer, the defendant,
defendant's attorney, and the State's attorney being present, and being asked if the jury had agreed upon a
verdict, the jury answered it had, and returned to the Court their verdict as shown above. Said verdict was
read aloud, received by the Court, and is now entered upon the minutes of the Court.

When it is shown above the defendant is guilty of the offense set forth above, it is considered by the court
that said defendant is adjudged to be guilty of the offense set forth above and that defendant committed the
offense onthe date setforth above as charged in the indictment and that said defendant be punished as has
been determined by the jury, said punishment being determined by the jury's answers to the Special Issues
submitted to them, and that the defendant be confined in the place of confinement shownabove until such
time as the sentence of death can be carried out. It is ordered that the State of Texas have and recover of the
said defendant all costs in this prosecution expended for which let execution issue. The Court further makes
its finding as to deadly weapon as set forth above based upon the jury's verdict.

When it is shown above that restitution has been ordered but the court determines that the inclusion of the
victim's name and address inthe judgment is not in the best interest ofthe victim the person oragency whose
name and address is set out in this judgment will accept and forward the restitution payments to the victim.

And when it is shown below that payment of the costs of legal services provided to the defendant in this
cause has beenordered, the court finds that the defendant has the financial resources to enable the defendant
to offset said costs in the amount ordered.

Thereupon the said defendant was asked by the court whether he had anything to say why said sentence
should not be pronounced against him and he answered nothing in bar thereof, and it appearing to the court
that the defendant is mentally competent and understanding ofthe proceedings, the Court proceeded to
pronounce sentence upon said defendant.

It is therefore, considered and ordered by the court in the presence ofdefendant and his attorney, that said
judgment as set forth above is hereby in all things approved and confirmed, and that defendant, who has been
adjudged guilty of the above named offense, as shown above, and whose punishment has been assessed as
shown above, be punished in accordance with the punishment set forth above and that defendant shall be
delivered by the sheriff to the director of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department ofCriminal
Justice, or other person legally authorized to receive such convicts for the punishment assessed herein and
said defendant shall be confined until such time as the sentence of death can be carried out in accordance with
the provisions of law governing such punishments. It is further ordered that the defendant pay the court
costs, costs and expenses of legal services provided by the court appointed attorney in this cause, if any, and
restitution or reparation, as set forth herein, for which let execution issue.

Defendant is hereby ordered remanded to jail until said sheriff can obey the directions of this judgment.
Following the disposition of this cause the defendant's fingerprint was in open court, placed upon a certificate
offingerprint. Said certificate is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference as a part of this judgment.
When required a pre-sentence investigation was conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of
law.

Defendant excepts and gives notice of appeal.

Court costs in the amount of $243.00

No victim impact statement has been received by the Court.

Signed this 31" day of October, 2002.

                                                                       #A*>*~s'.

                                                     LANA McDANIEL, JUDGE
                                                     203rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
                                                     DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                 JUDGMENT
                        CERTIFICATE OF THUMBPRINT

                     CAUSE NO.    FQl- S'Fsqg

THE STATE OF TEXAS                               IN THE      2&3

VS.                                              DISTRICT COURT

                                                 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Right
Thumb*                                    Defendant's     &.u,ut          hand

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FINGERPRINTS ABOVE ARE THE ABOVE-
NAMED DEFENDANT'S FINGERPRINTS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF DISPOSITION
OF THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUMBERED CAUSE.

DONE IN COURT THIS      3j   DAY OF     OCTc,Tae.e.           , y4 2c**-i..

                                                      &7£~
                                         BAILIFF/DEPUTY SHERIFF

♦Indicate here if    print other than defendant's right thumbprint
is placed in box:

1   I left thumbprint            1 1 left/right index finger

I   I other.
          AND WHEREAS, onthe 4th day ofOctober, 2004, intrial court No. FOl -59398-P, Court of

Criminal Appeals No. 74,494 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a mandateaffirming the

Judgment in Licho Escamilla vs. The State of Texas as follows, to-wit:

                                   MANDATE ATTACHED

WARRANT OF EXECUTION
Escamilla. wex
                                                                                                /            PAGE
                        , NOW ON FILE IN MY OFFICE.

       GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS,
           . tel          Duly
THIS   $           DAY OFJtfNE, 2015

                              rd no*   FELICIA PITRE, DISTRICT CLERK
                                       DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE - Page Solo
                                   SHERIFFS RETURN

       The above and foregoing Warrant came to hand on the             day ofJune A.D. 2015,

and immediately upon receipt, said Warrant was taken to the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division, at Huntsville, Texas, and delivered into the hands of the

Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and from the

said Director a receipt was taken for the said Warrant as follows:

       "Received from the Sheriff of Dallas County, Texas, a Warrant for the execution of

the Death Sentence to be executed upon Licho Escamilla in Cause No. FOl-59398-P, in the

203rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas."

Date Signed:
                                           Director
                                           Texas Department of Criminal Justice
                                           Institutional Division
                                           Huntsville, Texas

which said receipt I now return to the office of the Clerk of the 203rd Judicial District Court

ofDallas County, Texas, this             day of                                   , A.D. 2015.

                                           SHERIFF
                                           DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

SHERIFF'S RETURN - Solo Page
f                                                                                          LpCoofizG

                                       SHERIFF'S RETURN

           The above and foregoing Warrant came to hand on the             day ofJune A.D. 2015,
    and immediately upon receipt, said Warrant was taken tothe Texas Department ofCriminal

    Justice, Institutional Division, at Huntsville, Texas, and delivered into the hands of the

    Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and from the

    said Director a receipt was taken for the said Warrant as follows:

           "Received from the Sheriff of Dallas County, Texas, a Warrant for the execution of

    the Death Sentence to be executed upon Licho Escamilla in Cause No. FOl-59398-P, inthe

    203rd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas."

                                                                                    '/}c/,