Court Opinion

ID: 9682669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:19:23.569782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:36.143217
License: Public Domain

In The
                                Court of Appeals
                       Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                       No. 07-22-00347-CR

                       DAVID ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

                                                 V.

                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS

                            On Appeal from the 64th District Court
                                   Swisher County, Texas
               Trial Court No. A4943-22-05, Honorable Danah Zirpoli, Presiding

                                        August 22, 2023
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       A jury convicted Appellant, David Enrique Rodriguez, of assaulting a peace

officer.1 The punishment phase was tried to the court which assessed punishment at

twenty years of confinement in prison. Through a single issue on appeal, Appellant

argues the trial court reversibly erred by failing to submit a jury instruction on the lesser-

       1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1),(b)(1).
included offense of resisting arrest.2            We overrule Appellant’s issue and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

                                              Background

         Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction,

so we mention only those background facts germane to his issue on appeal. After the

evidence had closed during the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the trial court conducted an

informal charge conference outside the jury’s presence. The following exchange took

place:

      THE COURT: Are there any specific instructions that you want?                              I’m
      assuming you want an extraneous offense.

      THE DEFENSE: I do. I have a couple of disorderly conduct language and
      resisting arrest.

      THE COURT: As a lesser or just an instruction for an extraneous offense?

      THE DEFENSE: As a lesser.

      THE COURT: Okay. I’ll have to think about that.

      THE STATE: It’s the State’s position that the elements are not the same and
      that the proof would be different. It’s not that the offense charged is more --
      includes all the elements of those two that he’s requesting on the Charge, so
      we would object to his inclusion of those as lesser.

      THE DEFENSE: And I understand that, and I’m waffling a little bit. Then
      extraneous, Judge.

      THE COURT: Okay. I have that one.

         2 Given the basis for affirmance, it is unnecessary to determine whether resisting arrest would have

been a proper lesser-included offense to assault on a public servant. See Steele v. State, 490 S.W.3d 117
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (discussing cases and presenting analysis).

                                                      2
The attorneys and court then continued discussion on the language for the extraneous

offense instruction. When the court asked, “Any other instructions that you could think

of,” Appellant’s counsel responded, “No, your honor.”

       During the charge conference, the court distributed a copy of its proposed jury

charge and asked if the attorneys had a chance to review it. The State’s attorney made

one request, which the court denied. The court then asked if Appellant’s counsel had

reviewed the charge; counsel responded, “I have, Your Honor, and I have no requested

additions or corrections.” The court then specifically pointed out to counsel that it “did not

put in any of the lesser included offenses that were requested yesterday. In my research,

I did not believe that those would necessarily be lesser includeds of this offense . . . .”

Appellant’s counsel responded, “I understand. I’m satisfied with the instructed Paragraph

Number 5 [pertaining to extraneous offenses].” Later, the court asked if there “is anything

else about that that the parties wish to make sure is on the record,” and Appellant’s

counsel replied, “No, nothing, Your Honor.”

                                           Analysis

       Criminal jury charges contain the “law applicable to the case” and often “defensive

issues.” Tolbert v. State, 306 S.W.3d 776, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). It is the duty of

the trial court to prepare a jury charge that accurately sets out the law applicable to the

case. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.14 (requiring “judge shall . . . deliver to the jury

. . . a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case[.]”). This is true

even if the defense fails to object to inclusions in or exclusions from the charge. Taylor

v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “But it does not inevitably follow

                                               3
that [the trial court] has a similar sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on all potential

defensive issues, lesser-included offenses, or evidentiary issues.” Delgado v. State, 235

S.W.3d 244, 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This is because “these issues frequently

depend upon trial strategy and tactics.” Tolbert, 306 S.W.3d at 780 (cleaned up); Zamora

v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defensive issues “involve strategic

decisions and tactics generally left to the lawyer and the client.”). A lesser-included

offense does not become the law applicable to the case unless the defendant requests

the issue or objects to its omission from the charge. Lopez v. State, No. 04-13-00306-

CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8512, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 6, 2014, pet.

refused) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Tolbert, 306 S.W.3d at 781).

       At the charge conference, Appellant’s counsel did not tender in writing or dictate

into the record a lesser-included instruction. Nor did counsel object to omission of an

instruction. Rather, counsel communicated satisfaction with the charge. Thus, the issue

Appellant now raises on appeal was not preserved for appellate review. See Vega v.

State, 394 S.W.3d 514, 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“A defendant cannot complain on

appeal about the trial judge’s failure to include a defensive instruction that he did not

preserve by request or objection: he has procedurally defaulted any such complaint.”);

Darnes v. State, 118 S.W.3d 916, 921 (Tex. App—Amarillo 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding that

“the failure to ask the trial court to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense does not

preserve the issue for review.”). We overrule Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.

                                             4
                                      Conclusion

      Having overruled Appellant’s issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                      Lawrence M. Doss
                                                          Justice

Do not publish.

                                           5