Jesse Daniel Sabedra, III v. State
10-16-00033-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Jesse Daniel Sabedra, III was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
- The underlying offense arose from an undercover informant’s drug purchase; the arrest occurred within 1,000 feet of school property.
- The indictment referenced the Hamilton Independent School District; the State’s proof identified only "the school" or property owned by "the school."
- Sabedra appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to prove the drug-free zone enhancement because the State did not prove the property was owned/leased/rented by the Hamilton ISD, (2) certain assessed costs lacked statutory authorization ($133 copies/search and $5 county drug court fee), and (3) the judgment’s statutory citation was incorrect.
- The court reviewed sufficiency under the Jackson v. Virginia standard and applied Malik principles regarding immaterial variances between indictment and proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of drug-free zone evidence | State: proof that offense occurred within 1,000 feet of property owned by "the school" satisfies enhancement element | Sabedra: State failed to prove property was owned/leased/rented by Hamilton ISD as alleged | Overruled — the school-ownership naming was an immaterial variance; testimony that the offense was within 1,000 feet of property owned by “the school” sufficed under a hypothetically correct charge |
| $133 copies/search fee | State: fee either authorized or properly assessed as court cost | Sabedra: no statutory authorization for $133 copies/search fee | Sustained — $133 copies/search fee deleted from judgment |
| $5 Criminal-County Drug Court fee | State: fee authorized or properly assessed | Sabedra: no statutory authorization for $5 drug court fee | Sustained — $5 Criminal-Co. Drug Court Fee deleted from judgment |
| Judgment statutory citation accuracy | State: judgment correctly names offense; Code does not require full statutory cross-references in judgment | Sabedra: judgment should be modified to more precisely reflect Health & Safety Code sections | Overruled — judgment adequately reflects conviction and need not list statutory provisions; no reformation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (circumstantial and direct evidence treated equally)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (hypothetically correct jury charge and immaterial variances)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (discussion of sufficiency review and standard)
- Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250 (immaterial variance between indictment and proof)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (only statutorily authorized court costs may be assessed)
- Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460 (authority to reform judgments when data supports reformation)
Modified and affirmed as modified.