Rojelio Rocky Santana, Jr. v. State
11-15-00010-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- Appellant Rojelio Rocky Santana, Jr. was convicted by a jury of robbery (lesser-included of aggravated robbery) and, after pleading true to a prior methamphetamine conviction, received an enhanced punishment of 30 years' confinement.
- Incident: Walmart asset-protection employees observed Santana take two GPS units, attempt a return, exit with merchandise, and (per witnesses) threaten an employee with a knife; officers later arrested Santana but did not recover the GPS or a knife.
- At punishment, the jury began deliberations at 11:47 a.m.; at 3:21 p.m. they sent a note asking, “What will happen if we are undecided?”
- The trial court proposed and, with both parties’ express approval, delivered an Allen charge instructing jurors to continue deliberating if they could conscientiously do so.
- After the supplemental charge, the jury resumed deliberations and returned the 30-year sentence at 5:05 p.m.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by giving an Allen charge during punishment deliberations (coercion/unrequested) | The Allen charge was “unrequested” (jury not clearly deadlocked) and coerced the jury into a substantial sentence | The jury posed a question about being undecided; the charge answered that request, was approved at bench, and was not coercive | Court held no error: appellant failed to preserve complaint and charge was neither unrequested nor coercive |
| Whether giving the Allen charge violated Art. 36.16 (no further charge after argument unless requested by jury) | Trial court violated Article 36.16 by giving the Allen charge | Article 36.16 permits a further charge if requested by the jury; appellant did not timely object at trial | Court held no violation: jury requested instruction and appellant failed to preserve any Art. 36.16 objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (superseding discussion of Allen charge authority) (establishing instruction encouraging further deliberation)
- Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (coercive effect of jury instructions assessed in context)
- Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sanctioning Allen-type instructions)
- Barnett v. State, 189 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (describing purpose/content of Allen charge)
- Loving v. State, 947 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (Allen charge may be given before explicit deadlock; preservation rules for Article 36.16 objections)