sleep or eat.Elia Briseno, Appellant’s fiance, had been staying awake to take care ofAppellant, and she was exhausted. She had taken Appellant to the hospitalearlier in the day, but because he was an adult and refused treatment, he was givenonly Benadryl to help him sleep.Briseno wanted Appellant to be taken to a hospital for a mental evaluation,and she contacted law enforcement personnel. Officers from Midland PoliceDepartment were dispatched to Appellant’s house. When Officer BradleyAlexander arrived, he spoke to Appellant’s father in front of the residence and thenfollowed him inside. Appellant and his brother, Jesus Quiroz, were in the diningarea of a large room that also included the kitchen and living room. Appellant was
using a large butcher knife to carve a new hole in his belt. Officer Alexanderdrew his weapon and gave repeated verbal commands for Appellant to drop theknife. Although Appellant testified that he immediately dropped the knife,Officer Alexander testified that Jesus took the knife from Appellant and placed iton a nearby counter. Officer Alexander detained Jesus for officer safety. He
holstered his weapon and was putting handcuffs on Jesus when several otherfamily members came into the room. Officer Alexander ordered everyone into theliving room area. Continue reading
point. The events out of which the charges in this case arose occurred at the homeof Adrian Nunez during a party complete with loud music, strobe lights, and glowsticks and ultimately attended by some twenty-five people.Nunez lived in a trailer just outside Odessa. At around 11:30 on the nightbefore the early morning assault took place, Appellant and his brother SonnyHignojos met some friends at the party at Nunez’s house. There were not manypeople there, and after about an hour, Appellant, Sonny, and some of the friendswhom they had met there left and went to a different party. The second partyfizzled after about an hour, and Appellant, Sonny, and others who had gone therewith them left and returned to the party at Nunez’s house. Those who were withAppellant when they returned to the party included Sonny, Bobby Herrera, Jacob
Garcia, Brianna Alvarado, and Savannah Evaro.The testimony shows that several women decided to go to the party atNunez’s house. One of those women testified that there were some men outsideNunez’s trailer when the women arrived. Apparently, the men were not welcomeat the party and were not happy about that. Another of the women said that the
men were upset because two girls that were with the men had been told to leave theparty. Yet another of the women testified that Nunez had told the entire group toleave because the other women at the party did not want any of them there.
OURT OF PPEALS FOR THEIRST ISTRICT OF EXAS AT OUSTONRDER ON OTION
Damion Gentry v. The State of Texas
September 25, 2014
Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record
OURT OF PPEALS FOR THEIRST ISTRICT OF EXAS AT OUSTONEMORANDUM RDER
CAFDTHMOCaylon Johnson v. The State of Texas Trial court case number: 1338720, 1338721 Trial court: See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. The record was due on October 14, 2013. See T.R.A.P. 35.2(a). The clerk’s record was filed on October 14, 2013 and the reporter’s record has not been filed. 2013, the Court might consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’srecord. See T.R.A.P. 37.3(c). paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the reporter’s record within 15days of the date of this order. If appellant does not submit such evidence by this deadline, then (1) the Court will consider and decide the appeals on those issues or points that do not require a 45 days of the date of this order. Acting individually Acting for the Court Date: September 30, 2014 Continue reading
OURT OF PPEALS FOR THEIRST ISTRICT OF EXAS AT OUSTONEMORANDUM RDER
CAFDTHMOCaylon Johnson v. The State of Texas Trial court case number: 1338720 Trial court: See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. The record was due on October 14, 2013. See T.R.A.P. 35.2(a). The clerk’s record was filed on October 14, 2013 and the reporter’s record has not been filed. 2013, the Court might consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’srecord. See T.R.A.P. 37.3(c). paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the reporter’s record within 15days of the date of this order. If appellant does not submit such evidence by this deadline, then (1) the Court will consider and decide the appeals on those issues or points that do not require a 45 days of the date of this order. Acting individually Acting for the Court Date: September 30, 2014 Continue reading
Bailey C. MoseleyJustice
September 3, 2014September 26, 2014
2See T.PCA. § 31.03(e)(2) (West Supp. 2014). 3In a consolidated trial, Brenda was also convicted of bail jumping and failure to appear. Brenda has likewiseappealed her conviction in that case. This appeal is the subject of a separate opinion in this Court’s cause number06-14-00070-CR issued of even date herewith. legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 31819). Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct jury charge sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried. Id. Continue reading
appellant’s conviction for a greater-inclusive offense, in deciding whether toreform the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser-included offense, thatcourt must answer two questions: 1) in the course of convicting the appellant ofthe greater offense, must the jury have necessarily found every element necessaryto convict the appellant for the lesser-included offense; and 2) conducting anevidentiary sufficiency analysis as though the appellant had been convicted of thelesser-included offense at trial, is there sufficient evidence to support a convictionfor that offense? If the answer to either of these questions is no, the court of
appeals is not authorized to reform the judgment. But if the answers to both are
yes, the court is authorized–indeed required–to avoid the unjust result of an1Canida was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment after he entered pleas of true to the State’s enhancementparagraph. outright acquittal by reforming the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense.
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299300 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citation omitted). Continue reading
brief was originally due April 15, 2014. We have granted four extensions of time
under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay.