Texas Courts of Appeals
Lopez v. State
No. 13-22-00171-CR 07/06/23
Issue:
Did the jury charge require the jury to unanimously agree on the defendant’s mens rea for murder when the mens rea differs between the three theories of murder charged in the indictment?
Holding:
No. Penal Code §§19.02(b)(1), 19.02(b)(2), and 19.02(b)(3) do not constitute three separate offenses. Although the conduct is different, the three methods of committing murder set forth in the statute are different manners and means of committing the same offense, not distinct and separate offenses. The indictment and jury charge indicated that the only offense involved in this case was murder by any of the three methods set forth in the Penal Code; therefore, the jury did not need to unanimously agree on the preliminary factual issue of the defendant’s mental state as long as it agreed that the defendant murdered the victim. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This case serves as a tidy and clear reminder that, when an offense is result-oriented, as here, the factfinder need not be unanimous as to the particular manner and means (or type of conduct) by which the defendant achieved that result. This opinion will be useful to prosecutors who work with murder cases, specifically, but also may be helpful by analogy in other cases where multiple manners and means are frequently alleged (e.g., assault cases). The appellate court relies on solid law and its opinion is consistent with those of other appellate courts, so it is unlikely that the Court of Criminal Appeals will grant review on this issue.
Rodriguez v. State
No. 04-22-00047-CR 07/05/23
Issue:
Does the court’s error in a fine amount for a DWI entitle the defendant to a new punishment hearing because the $6,000 fine was an illegal sentence?
Holding:
No. The court can modify the judgment. The remedy in an unauthorized fine case is to delete the improper fine from the judgment. Read opinion.
Commentary:
When a trial court imposes an illegal sentence, the remedy is usually that the appellate court will remand the case for a new punishment hearing. This is true when the sentence is illegal because it contains an unauthorized term of confinement (either too low or too high for the offense of conviction). See, e.g., Baker v. State, 278 S.W.3d 923, 926-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d). This is also true when the sentence is illegal because it does not include a fine at all, when the offense of conviction requires one. See, e.g., Blue v. State, 591 S.W.3d 255, 259-60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). But as this case illustrates, when the sentence is illegal because it contains an unauthorized fine (i.e., when no fine is warranted at all), the appellate court can simply modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the improper fine, without remanding the case for a new punishment hearing.