Brian Lancaster v. State ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •   

     

    IN THE

    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

     

    Nos. 10-08-00025-CR, 10-08-00026-CR, 10-08-00027-CR, 10-08-00028-CR,

    10-08-00029-CR, 10-08-00030-CR, and 10-08-00058-CR

     

    Brian Lancaster,

                                                                                        Appellant

     v.

     

    The State of Texas,

                                                                                        Appellee

     

     

       


    From the 272nd District Court

    Brazos County, Texas

    Trial Court Nos. 07-01488-CRF-272, 07-01490-CRF-272,

    07-03055-CRF-272, 07-03056-CRF-272, 07-03057-CRF-272,

    07-3058-CRF-272, and 07-01489-CRF-272

     

    ABATEMENT ORDER

     

                Appellant’s brief is overdue, and after notice to appellant’s counsel to file a brief or extension request, none has been filed.  Therefore, we abate these causes to the trial court for a hearing to determine: (1) why a brief has not been filed on appellant’s behalf; (2) whether counsel has abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant still desires to proceed with the appeal; and (4) whether appellant desires self-representation.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3); Fewins v. State, 170 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, order).

                The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 30 days after the date of this order.  The trial court clerk and the court reporter shall file supplemental records within 45 days after the date of this order.  See Fewins, 170 S.W.3d at 296-97.

                                                                                        PER CURIAM

    Before Chief Justice Gray,

                Justice Vance, and

                Justice Reyna

    Appeals abated

    Order issued and filed December 17, 2008

    Do not publish

    [CRPM]


     

    i>See Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  Reviewing all the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that Martinez threatened to stab Hotelling.  Martinez’s first issue is overruled.

                Hotelling also testified that the knife Martinez used to threaten her was a folding knife, also referred to as a pocket knife, which he unfolded to reveal a 4 inch blade.  Martinez argues in his second issue that because no knife was introduced into evidence and because a knife is not a deadly weapon, per se, the jury was unable to determine whether or not the knife Hotelling testified about was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.  But Hotelling stated she was afraid that he would hurt her and that the knife was capable of killing her.  Further, Detective Rozyskie, of the Waco Police Department, testified that a pocket knife with a 4 inch blade could be capable of causing serious bodily injury or death by stabbing, slicing, or cutting. 

                It is true that a knife is not a deadly weapon per se.  Lafleur v. State, 106 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).  However, an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.  McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 (a)(17)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2007).  Objects used to threaten deadly force are deadly weapons. Herring v. State, 202 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); McCain, 22 S.W.3d at 503.  The State need only show that the weapon used was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death in its use or intended use.  Adame v. State, 69 S.W.3d 581, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

                Reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to prove the use or display of a deadly weapon.  Martinez’s second issue is overruled.

                Having overruled each issue presented to us, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

     

                                                                            TOM GRAY

                                                                            Chief Justice

     

    Before Chief Justice Gray,

                Justice Vance, and

                Justice Reyna

    Affirmed

    Opinion delivered and filed February 6, 2008

    Do not publish

    [CR25]

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-08-00025-CR

Filed Date: 12/17/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2015