Sanchez, Luis
PD-0372-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 21, 2015Background
- Petitioner Luis Sanchez was convicted of assault-family violence, a third-degree felony, for an incident with Rachel Price while alleging a dating relationship under Texas Penal Code §22.01(b)(2) and Family Code §71.0021(b).
- Sanchez and Price had a long relationship culminating in a common-law marriage in 2006 and a divorce in 2010; the alleged assault occurred December 18, 2009.
- Indictment charged only the dating-relationship element and did not plead alternatives under §22.01(b)(2) or §71.003/§71.005.
- Appellate court majority affirmed the conviction; Chief Justice Wright dissented, criticizing the reliance on past dating relationship despite intervening marriage.
- State’s theory hinged on “dating relationship” having prior existence; evidence showed a marriage and shared household, creating a variance with the indictment.
- Petition for discretionary review seeks reversal of the conviction or remand for punishment-only reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a dating-relationship element support a felony when marriage intervenes? | Sanchez argues dating relationship cannot include marriage as continuous. | State argues the past dating relationship qualifies under §71.0021(b)’s “have had” language. | Yes; ‘have had’ encompasses past dating relationships irrespective of intervening marriage. |
| Is there a fatal variance between indictment and proof due to the dating-relations element? | Sanchez asserts variance; indictment limited to dating relationship while evidence showed marriage. | State contends variance immaterial or misalignment not fatal under applicable standards. | There is a variance between the indictment and proof as to the pleaded element. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove the offense of assault (bodily injury) independent of dating element? | Sanchez challenges sufficiency given credibility issues and lack of corroboration. | State argues testimony and photographs establish bodily injury and assault. | Yes; evidence supports the bodily-injury element and likelihood of the offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (sufficiency measured by elements actually pled; immaterial variance not controlling)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (immaterial variance doctrine; due process requires proof of elements pled)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact must find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (fact-finder credibility; defer to credibility determinations)