Magalde, Fernando, PD-0114-15

Background

Defendant Fernando Magalde was tried on a three‑count indictment (robbery, aggravated kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle). The jury acquitted on robbery and unauthorized use, and convicted on the lesser‑included offense of unlawful restraint (Class A misdemeanor). Sentence: 365 days jail and $4,000 fine.
Facts at trial: victim (his partner) and Magalde drove together to a festival; after an argument Magalde drove away, struck the victim, pulled her by the hair to prevent her exiting a moving vehicle, took her phone, drove to his mother’s house, where an intervention occurred and the victim later retrieved a knife; Magalde left in the vehicle.
Trial court instructed the jury on aggravated kidnapping and the lesser included offense unlawful restraint; defense objected to submission of kidnapping but the court submitted both kidnapping and unlawful restraint. The jury returned a verdict of unlawful restraint.
On direct appeal the El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Magalde sought discretionary review but missed the filing deadline due to a clerical error; an 11.07 writ was later granted allowing an out‑of‑time PDR; this PDR challenges sufficiency and the propriety of the lesser‑included instruction.
Central legal claim: Magalde argues the unlawful restraint charge was not supported by evidence germane to the lesser‑included offense (failure of the second prong of the two‑prong test), so the jury instruction was improper and the conviction is legally insufficient and violative of due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Magalde)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether unlawful restraint was properly submitted as a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping	Trial evidence did not produce direct, germane proof that Magalde was guilty only of unlawful restraint; the second prong (evidence supporting lesser offense as a valid alternative) was not met and the instruction invited compromise verdict	The State contends the record supports submission: the elements of unlawful restraint were encompassed in proof and jurors could rationally find restraint without the aggravated‑kidnapping elements	On appeal the 8th Ct. of Appeals affirmed the conviction (Magalde now seeks discretionary review arguing the court failed to apply the two‑prong test correctly)
Whether the jury charge's form and wording (use of “paragraph” vs. “count”, sequencing) created a legally improper or misleading instruction	Charge mislabeling and structure combined multiple offenses/alternatives in ways that misjoined offenses and could have led jurors to reach a compromise verdict rather than a legally justified conviction	The State treated the charge as a hypothetically correct rendition of the law tied to the indictment and sufficient for review under Jackson	Magalde argues these charge defects undermine due process and sufficiency review; the appellate court did not reverse on this basis
Whether, under Jackson v. Virginia, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict could have supported each element of unlawful restraint beyond a reasonable doubt	Magalde argues that, even under Jackson, the evidence was insufficient because the conduct (pulling hair to prevent exit to avoid injury) did not show the intent elements required for restraint as a lesser to aggravated kidnapping	The State argues credibility and inferences supported a rational juror’s finding of unlawful restraint beyond a reasonable doubt	The 8th Ct. of Appeals upheld sufficiency; Magalde disputes that court’s analysis and seeks review
Whether erroneous submission of the lesser included offense requires acquittal or reversal	Magalde seeks reversal and a judgment of acquittal because failure to prove every element of the charged offense (as defined by the jury charge) violates due process	The State would argue relief is not warranted where a rational jury could convict on the lesser offense and no reversible charge error occurred	Magalde requests reversal/remand; discretionary review is sought to address these legal issues

Key Cases Cited

Brunks v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1954) (due process and burden‑of‑proof principles)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal convictions)
Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1982) (reversal where contrary evidence so overwhelming as to undermine confidence in verdict)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to jury on credibility; standard of review)
Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two‑prong test for submitting lesser included offense)
Brinage v. State, 918 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (elements of kidnapping/aggravated kidnapping and requirement of intent preventing liberation)
Benavides v. State, 763 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988) (sufficiency review tied to the hypothetically correct jury charge)