Vasquez v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3358
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Anibal Vasquez was convicted of aggravated robbery in Fort Bend County, Texas, based on a theory he acted as a party to the offense.
- Two alleged accomplices, Alexis Martinez and Edwin Maldonado, aided in an armed robbery at a taco truck; a firearm and cash were taken from the victim.
- The complainant identified all three men in a field lineup after they were taken into a Suburban and fled the scene.
- Appellant claimed he merely drove the getaway vehicle and did not participate in the robbery; he testified he followed the truck for about five minutes and later confessed.
- Police recovered approximately $510 and a firearm from the Suburban’s center console; the confession was given after appellant was read his rights and translated.
- The trial court admitted video of the confession; the jury found Vasquez guilty and assessed nineteen years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient against Vasquez. | Vasquez argues insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Vasquez contends the evidence fails to show his participation as a party. | Evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (sufficient). |
| Whether the jury charge improperly instructed the law of parties in the application paragraph. | State asserts error was not preserved or not harmful. | Vasquez objected to the application paragraph and argued failure to apply the law to facts. | Charge error; failure to apply law of parties to the facts requires reversal and remand. |
| Whether Vasquez properly preserved/raised the jury-charge error. | Error preserved under Johnson/related precedents. | The objection was not sufficiently precise to preserve error. | Error preserved; requires reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (established Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency review (legal standard))
- Johnson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (required application of law of parties to the facts in the application paragraph; preservation of error)
- Campbell v. State, 910 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (concerning error when trial court fails to apply law of conspiracy to facts in the application paragraph)
- Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (charge error not constituting egregious harm absent objection or preserved error)
- Chatman v. State, 846 S.W.2d 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discussed use of Benson/Boozer rule for sufficiency after an abstract application)
- Marquis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (application paragraph referencing abstract law of parties found error not egregious where no objection)
- Villareal v. State, 116 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (not dispositive; discusses preservation of error when objection is unclear)