Daniel Carcamo v. the State of Texas, 03-23-00405-CR

Daniel Carcamo was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (against a dating partner) and assault family violence by impeding breathing or circulation, based on a violent incident in Austin, Texas.
The jury found Carcamo guilty and sentenced him to 13 years for aggravated assault and 10 years for family violence assault; the court entered judgments accordingly.
At trial, Carcamo argued his behavior resulted from unknowingly ingesting adulterated LSD, lacking intent or awareness during the assault, with expert testimony presented on his later schizophrenia diagnosis.
The prosecution presented strong physical and video evidence of the assault and offered rebuttal testimony about prior acts of strangulation by Carcamo, as well as further acts during punishment.
On appeal, Carcamo claimed the trial court erred by permitting rebuttal extraneous-offense evidence and by allowing victim allocution before his sentence was pronounced; he also identified a clerical error in the judgment regarding the felony degree.
The appellate court modified the judgment to correct the offense degree but upheld the convictions and the procedures challenged by Carcamo.

Issue	Carcamo’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admission of extraneous-offense evidence in rebuttal	State should have presented extraneous-offense evidence earlier; its use as rebuttal violated due process	Permitted to rebut defenses raised by Carcamo, especially after he testified	Overruled; argument inadequately briefed, no authority provided
Timing of victim allocution (before formal sentencing)	Statute requires allocution after sentences are pronounced; possible prejudice	No timely objection made; statute requires error be preserved	Overruled; not preserved for appeal
Clerical error—degree of offense in judgment	N/A	Felony degree should be corrected from third to second, per indictment and law	Judgment modified to reflect second-degree felony

Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (A conclusory due process argument without authority is inadequate for appeal.)
Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Arguments must be properly briefed and supported by authority for appellate review.)
Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (General constitutional complaints are insufficient for appellate relief.)
Darcy v. State, 488 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Error must be preserved for appellate review by timely objection.)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Appellate complaints must be specifically objected to at trial.)
Word v. State, 206 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (No presumption of error from a silent record; appellant must show preserved error.)