Lopez, Jesus Patricio v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed; Opinion Filed June 9, 2014.
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-12-00201-CR
    JESUS PATRICIO LOPEZ, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F10-63646-V
    MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
    Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Lewis
    Opinion by Justice Myers
    Jesus Patricio Lopez pleaded nolo contendere to burglary of a habitation, and the trial
    court sentenced appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment. Appellant brought one issue on appeal
    asserting the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. This Court found the evidence
    of appellant’s guilt insufficient to meet the standard of article 1.15 of the code of criminal
    procedure, we reversed appellant’s conviction, and we remanded the cause to the trial court for
    further proceedings. Lopez v. State, No. 05-12-00201-CV, 
    2013 WL 363777
    (Tex. App.—Dallas
    Jan. 31, 2013) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (Lopez I), rev’d, No. PD-0245-13, 
    2013 WL 6123577
    (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2013) (not designated for publication). The Texas
    Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for discretionary review and determined
    the evidence was sufficient. The court of criminal appeals reversed our judgment and remanded
    the cause to this Court for further proceedings. Lopez v. State, PD-0245-13, 
    2013 WL 6123577
    ,
    *1, 3 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 20, 2013) (not designated for publication) (Lopez II). After the case
    was remanded to this Court, the parties filed supplemental briefing. Appellant brings one issue
    contending the evidence was insufficient to support his plea because there was no evidence
    appellant inflicted serious bodily injury on the complainant. Because the court of criminal
    appeals determined the evidence was sufficient to support the plea, we affirm the trial court’s
    judgment.
    Appellant and his brother broke into the complainant’s house and beat him.             The
    complainant went to the hospital, and “he received stitches around his left eye.” Lopez II, at *1.
    The State charged appellant with burglary of a habitation, alleging appellant entered a habitation
    without the effective consent of the complainant and committed the felony of aggravated assault.
    Lopez I, at *1. The State agreed with appellant that there had to be some evidence that appellant
    caused serious bodily injury to another. 
    Id. Over ten
    months after the incident, the complainant
    testified at the hearing on appellant’s plea of nolo contendere that he did not see well out of his
    left eye; however, he did not testify that his impaired vision was related to the beating. See
    Lopez II, at *1–2; Lopez I, at *1–2. The court of criminal appeals noted that “[f]act finders are
    permitted ‘to draw multiple reasonable inferences from facts as long as each is supported by the
    evidence at trial.’” Lopez II, at *2 (quoting Merritt v. State, 
    368 S.W.3d 516
    , 525 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2012). The court concluded that “the state offered evidence that supports a reasonable
    inference that appellant’s actions caused the complainant’s prolonged visual impairment.” Lopez
    II, at *3.
    Appellant contends in his issue on remand that “[t]here is no evidence that Lopez caused
    the complainant’s decreased vision. The State failed to satisfy its burden under any standard.”
    Appellant argues that “[t]here is simply no evidence, anywhere, that Lopez’s assault caused the
    –2–
    complainant to lose his vision.” Appellant’s argument is contrary to the court of criminal
    appeals’ conclusion.   The court of criminal appeals expressly determined “that appellant’s
    actions caused the complainant’s prolonged visual impairment.” Lopez II, at *3.
    “This Court is bound by the holdings of the court of criminal appeals.” Brown v. State¸
    
    92 S.W.3d 655
    , 659 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002), aff’d, 
    122 S.W.3d 794
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
    Because the court of criminal appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to find “that
    appellant’s actions caused the complainant’s prolonged visual impairment,” a necessary fact in
    the State’s allegation that appellant committed aggravated assault, we must also conclude the
    evidence is sufficient. We overrule appellant’s sole issue on remand.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47
    120201RF.U05                                         /Lana Myers/
    LANA MYERS
    JUSTICE
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    JESUS PATRICIO LOPEZ, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-12-00201-CR         V.                        Trial Court Cause No. F10-63646-V.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Myers.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                         Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 9th day of June, 2014.
    /Lana Myers/
    LANA MYERS
    JUSTICE
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-12-00201-CR

Filed Date: 6/9/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015