Chaves v. State

Decision Date03 June 2021
Docket NumberNO. 01-19-00524-CR,01-19-00524-CR
Citation630 S.W.3d 541
Parties Charles CHAVES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Panel consists of Justices Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

Julie Countiss, Justice

A jury found appellant, Charles Chaves, guilty of the felony offense of aggravated assault of a family member.1 After finding true the allegation in an enhancement paragraph that appellant had been previously convicted of a felony offense, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for seventeen years. In four issues, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, failing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense, and admitting certain evidence during the punishment phase of trial.

We affirm.

Background

The complainant, Brenda Vasquez, testified that she was previously in a dating relationship with appellant and appellant is the father of her two children. The complainant and appellant "share[d] a household" at one point, and the complainant stated that she previously considered herself to be "common-law married" to appellant. The complainant described appellant as "very controlling."

The complainant and her children moved into the home of the complainant's sister, Claudia Benedix, and her sister's husband, Trey Benedix, to "get away" from appellant and "to get away from the abusive relationship." Claudia's home was in Harris County, Texas.

On November 24, 2017, appellant and the complainant argued "through the phone" and in text messages. Appellant cursed at the complainant and threatened to kill her. Appellant told the complainant that he was coming to Claudia's house because he "wanted to talk."

When appellant arrived at Claudia's home, he left his car running and approached the front door. The complainant told Trey to let appellant inside. Appellant left the front door open and rushed inside toward the complainant, who was in the dining room. Appellant told the complainant "to go outside," but the complainant refused to do so. Appellant argued. The complainant told appellant that they could go talk in the complainant's bedroom, but first appellant had to turn off his car. When appellant went outside to turn off his car, Claudia told the complainant that appellant had a firearm in his pocket. The complainant knew that appellant carried a firearm.

The complainant and appellant went to the complainant's bedroom, where their two children were asleep. Appellant took out his firearm and pointed it at the complainant's forehead. He said, "[Y]ou think I'm fucking playing with you?" and "I told you what I was going to do." According to the complainant, appellant was referencing a text message that he sent to her earlier that day saying that "he was going to come and kill [her]."

The complainant fell to her knees on the floor. She was scared, feared that she was in imminent harm, and thought that appellant would shoot her. The complainant believed that her children and everyone in the home were in danger. She yelled, and Claudia and Trey came into the bedroom. They said, "[W]hat's going on?" and appellant responded, "[S]he thinks she's going to play with me." Claudia and Trey tried to calm appellant down.

While the complainant was on the floor, appellant slapped her across her face.2 Claudia and Trey told appellant to relax, to put the firearm down, and to leave. Appellant refused to leave the home unless the complainant walked in front of him. The complainant said, "[N]o, I'm not going to walk," because she was scared that appellant would shoot her in the back.

Eventually, appellant reached the front door of the home. As he went outside, the complainant tried to close the door, but appellant grabbed her hair to pull her outside with him. In the process, appellant pulled out portions of the complainant's hair.3 The complainant did not "want him to take" her and managed to force herself back inside the house. Appellant told Claudia and Trey to give him the complainant and their two children. The complainant said, "[N]o. Don't let him take me. I don't want to go with him." Trey told appellant to "go put [his] gun away," and when appellant left to do so, the complainant, Claudia, and Trey shut the front door and ran to the hallway in the back of the home. Claudia called for emergency assistance. The complainant did not go to the hospital that night.

Claudia testified that the complainant is her sister. Claudia lived in a home on Golden Dale Court with her husband, Trey, their children, the complainant, and the complainant's two children. The complainant and her children came to live at Claudia's home in fall 2017 because the complainant "wanted to get away from" appellant. Appellant used to be the complainant's boyfriend, and the complainant used to live with appellant.

On November 24, 2017, appellant had been "in touch with" the complainant by telephone all day, and appellant told the complainant that he wanted to come to the house and talk to her. Appellant arrived at Claudia's house about 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., and Claudia saw that appellant was carrying a firearm. Claudia knew that appellant carried a firearm.

When appellant came into the house, he told the complainant, "I want to talk to you. ... [L]et's go in the room." Appellant did not drag the complainant to the complainant's bedroom. The complainant's children were asleep in the bedroom at the time. As appellant and the complainant went into the bedroom, Claudia went into her bedroom, where Trey was, and she told Trey that appellant had a firearm. Claudia then heard the complainant screaming and crying. She also heard arguing. Claudia opened the door to the complainant's bedroom and saw the complainant on the floor. Appellant had a firearm pointed at the complainant. Claudia thought appellant wanted to kill the complainant and everyone in the home. Appellant slapped the complainant and then pointed the firearm at Claudia and Trey. Appellant wanted Claudia and Trey to walk out of the bedroom, but Claudia told appellant to walk out first.

Appellant left the bedroom and walked down the hallway. He pulled the complainant by her hair, "trying to get her out the [front] door" of the home. Claudia did not let appellant pull the complainant out the front door. The complainant held onto Claudia and said, "[P]lease, don't let him take me out. He wants to kill me. Don't let him take me out." Claudia and Trey also tried to get appellant to "put the gun up." When appellant was outside the home, they closed the front door and locked it. Claudia, Trey, and the complainant went to the bedrooms and heard appellant "sho[o]t the [front] door one time." Claudia called for emergency assistance after appellant left the house.

Claudia believed that appellant intended to hurt the complainant that night, and Claudia felt threatened by appellant's actions. Claudia noted that appellant pulled out portions of the complainant's hair. According to Claudia, the complainant's children did not wake up during the aggravated assault.

The trial court admitted into evidence an audio recording of Claudia's telephone call for emergency assistance. On the recording, Claudia states that appellant was at her home "with a gun" and was "trying to kill all of [them]." Claudia explains that appellant came into the home with a firearm, pointed the firearm at "all of [them]," and hit the complainant.

Trey, the complainant's brother-in-law, testified that he lived in a home on Golden Dale Court with his wife, Claudia, their children, the complainant, and the complainant's two children. Trey knew that appellant carried a firearm.

On November 24, 2017, appellant came over to Trey's house late at night. When he arrived, he took the complainant to the complainant's bedroom, and they "started hollering back and forth." As Trey stood outside his bedroom's door, he heard commotion, arguing, and yelling in the complainant's bedroom. He heard the complainant scream. Claudia, who was with Trey, opened the door to the complainant's bedroom as Trey stood behind her. Appellant "had [the complainant] on the ground [and was] waving a gun." He then pointed the firearm back and forth—first pointing the firearm at the complainant and then pointing the firearm at Claudia and Trey. According to Trey, appellant "point[ed] the gun right at [him and Claudia] and back at [the complainant] and [appellant] had [the complainant's] head down on the ground." Claudia and Trey tried to calm down appellant because he was "heated." By talking to appellant, they "got [appellant] to step outside [the house] so he could put the gun away." When appellant was outside the home, Trey slammed the front door closed. After the front door was closed, appellant "shot [the] front door."

Trey noted that when appellant pointed the firearm at him and Claudia, Trey felt threatened, and he was afraid that appellant might discharge his firearm.

Harris County Constable's Office ("HCCO"), Precinct 5, Sergeant J. Hutchens testified that, while working on November 24, 2017, he responded to a "family assault call" at a home on Golden Dale Court in Harris County, Texas. Upon arrival, Hutchens met with the complainant, who was distraught. The complainant had minor swelling on the right side of her cheek, a cut on her ear, and "spots where her hair had been pulled out."4 Hutchens stated that the complainant's injuries were consistent with an assault having taken place. Hutchens noted that there were no signs of forced entry at the front door of the home, and appellant was no longer at the house when Hutchens arrived. Hutchens testified that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Adell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 2023
    ...id.; Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Chaves, 630 S.W.3d at 555, 557-58. As Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has emphasized, an appellate court has no obligation to construct and compose issues, facts, ......
  • Hammontree v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 2022
    ...issue by not providing supporting arguments, substantive analysis, and appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Chaves v. State, 630 S.W.3d 541, 555 App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (citing Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby v. State, ......
  • Arevalo v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2023
    ... ... analysis of the harm that Appellant allegedly suffered ... renders the issue of harm waived. See Cardenas , 30 ... S.W.3d at 393 (the failure to brief whether alleged error ... caused harm waived the issue on appeal); Chaves v ... State , 630 S.W.3d 541, 557 (Tex. App.-Houston ... [1 st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (same) (citing ... Wilson v. State , 473 S.W.3d 889, 900-01 (Tex ... App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref'd)); Keller ... v. State , 604 S.W.3d 214, 229-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas ... ...
  • Montellhunter v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 2022
    ...issue by not providing supporting arguments, substantive analysis, and appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Chaves v. State, 630 S.W.3d 541, 555 App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (citing Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby v. State, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT