Ramirez v. State

• Decision Date: 14 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 14–12–01130–CR.,14–12–01130–CR.
• Citation: 422 S.W.3d 898
• Parties: Michael Angel RAMIREZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

422 S.W.3d 898

Michael Angel RAMIREZ, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 14–12–01130–CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Feb. 4, 2014.

Discretionary Review Refused May 14, 2014.

Kyle Johnson, Houston, for Appellant.

Alan Curry, Houston, for the State.

Panel consists of Justices CHRISTOPHER, DONOVAN, and BROWN.

OPINION

TRACY CHRISTOPHER, Justice.

Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and convicted of the lesser-included offense of robbery.Punishment was assessed at twenty years' imprisonment.On appeal, we are asked to consider two issues: (1) whether the trial court erroneously denied an instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft, and (2) whether appellant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

The complaining witness, Cesar Lopez, testified that appellant stole his truck as he was attempting to leave a convenience store.According to Lopez, appellant approached the driver's side of the vehicle, lifted his shirt, and displayed what appearedto be the black handle of a firearm.Appellant made no verbal demands, but Lopez, feeling threatened, surrendered his keys.Appellant drove away and Lopez called police.Approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later, police encountered appellant driving the stolen truck.He was pulled over and arrested on the scene, but a firearm was not recovered in his possession.

Appellant testified in his own defense at trial.He admitted to stealing the truck on an impulse, but he asserted a different version of events.Appellant claimed that he found the truck unlocked, engine running, and with no person inside.Appellant testified that he took the truck because he wanted to visit a friend without having to ask his dad for a ride.Appellant said that he never had a gun and he was surprised to be charged with aggravated robbery.At most, he anticipated a charge of just “a simple unauthorized use.”

After both sides rested, appellant requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offenses of robbery and theft.The trial court agreed that robbery had been raised by the evidence, but it denied the request as to theft.The court stated that no evidence of the truck's value had been admitted, and thus, there was no basis for instructing the jury on a specific grade of theft.

LESSER–INCLUDED OFFENSE

We review the trial court's decision on the submission of a lesser-included offense for an abuse of discretion.SeeJackson v. State,160 S.W.3d 568, 575(Tex.Crim.App.2005).The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to guiding rules or principles.SeeMakeig v. State,802 S.W.2d 59, 62(Tex.Crim.App.1990).Because the trial court has no discretion in determining the applicable law, the trial court also abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze the law correctly and apply it to the facts of the case.SeeState v. Kurtz,152 S.W.3d 72, 81(Tex.Crim.App.2004).

We apply a two-prong test when determining whether a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense.SeeWortham v. State,412 S.W.3d 552, 554(Tex.Crim.App.2013);Rousseau v. State,855 S.W.2d 666, 672(Tex.Crim.App.1993);Royster v. State,622 S.W.2d 442, 444(Tex.Crim.App.1981).First, we consider whether the lesser-included offense is included within the proof necessary to establish the charged offense.SeeTex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.09;Flores v. State,245 S.W.3d 432, 439(Tex.Crim.App.2008).If it is, we then examine whether there is evidence in the record that would permit a jury to rationally find that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser-included offense.SeeAguilar v. State,682 S.W.2d 556, 558(Tex.Crim.App.1985).The evidence must establish that the lesser-included offense is a valid, rational alternative to the charged offense.SeeSegundo v. State,270 S.W.3d 79, 90–91(Tex.Crim.App.2008).Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is sufficient to entitle a defendant to the lesser charge.SeeGoad v. State,354 S.W.3d 443, 446(Tex.Crim.App.2011).We review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the requested lesser-included offense, regardless of whether the evidence was produced by the State or the defendant, or whether the evidence was strong, weak, unimpeached, or contradicted.SeeBell v. State,693 S.W.2d 434, 442(Tex.Crim.App.1985).

There is no dispute that theft is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery.SeeBignall v. State,887 S.W.2d 21, 23(Tex.Crim.App.1994).Thus, we consider only whether the record contains some evidence to support an instruction for theft.

A person commits a theft “if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.”SeeTex. Penal Code§ 31.03.The Penal Code describes several grades of theft ranging from a Class C misdemeanor to a felony of the first degree.Seeid.§ 31.03(e).With few exceptions not applicable here, the only element distinguishing one grade of theft from another is the value of the property taken.Seeid.Under Texas law, the value of the property taken is an essential element of the offense.SeeSimmons v. State,109 S.W.3d 469, 478–79(Tex.Crim.App.2003);Sowders v. State,693 S.W.2d 448, 450(Tex.Crim.App.1985);Christiansen v. State,575 S.W.2d 42, 44(Tex.Crim.App.[Panel Op.]1979);McKnight v. State,387 S.W.2d 662, 663(Tex.Crim.App.1965).

The record in this case reflects that appellant stole a 2004 Toyota Tacoma.The truck was described as black and having a special chrome bumper.Aside from these basic characteristics, there was no testimony about the truck's condition or value.When appellant requested his theft instruction, he sought just “a simple theft,” arguing that the jury could have found that there was no weapon or show of force.The trial court responded, “What theft would I give them?I mean, I can't guess at a value.There's no auto theft, per se.”We agree with the trial court that evidence of value was necessary to determine the grade of theft.Without such evidence, appellant did not establish his entitlement to an instruction on the lesser-included offense.SeeSanders v. State,664 S.W.2d 705, 709(Tex.Crim.App.1982)(op. on reh'g);Bonner v. State,820 S.W.2d 25, 27(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]1991, pet. ref'd).

Appellant acknowledges in his brief that evidence of value is necessary to support a conviction for theft.Yet, citing Williams v. State,314 S.W.3d 45(Tex.App.-Tyler2010, pet. ref'd), appellant contends that he may still have been entitled to the instruction.In Williams,the defendant was accused of stealing various items from a car, including a compact disk player, several compact disks, and a cellular telephone.Id. at 47.The State charged the defendant with aggravated robbery because the defendant allegedly exhibited a pocket knife after two bystanders intervened.Id.The Tyler Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by refusing a requested instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft, even though “[t]he value of the items in question here was not conclusively shown.”Id. at 53.In its harm analysis, the court considered the likely value of the stolen property, noting that the defendant was sentenced within the range of a first degree felony, even though the value of the property taken could not have reasonably exceeded the limits of a misdemeanor theft.Seeid.(“[T]heft of property valued at less than $1,500 is a misdemeanor.Appellant would have had to steal property valued at $200,000 or more to have been eligible for punishment for a first degree felony, which is what he faced in this case.”).

In this case, appellant was convicted of a second degree felony and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment.To support a felony theft conviction in the second degree, the value of the truck must have exceeded $100,000.SeeTex.Penal Code § 31.03(e)(6).For a theft conviction in the third degree, the property must have been valued between $20,000 and $100,000.¹See id.§ 31.03(e)(5).And for a state jail felony, the value must have fallen between $1,500 and $20,000.²See id.§ 31.03(e)(4).

As a matter of common knowledge, an eight-year old truck is most likely to fall within the range of value for a state jail felony theft.However, a requested instruction cannot be supported by speculation alone.Our court has specifically held that a defendant is not entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft without clear evidence of value in the record.SeeBonner,820 S.W.2d at 27.In Bonner,the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery after stealing merchandise from a Walmart.A witness described the stolen items as “tennis shoes and cigarettes and things.”Id.The defendant requested that the jury receive an instruction for a Class A misdemeanor theft,³ but the trial court refused.On appeal, we affirmed the defendant's conviction because the record contained no testimony of the value of the items stolen.Id.

The law has not changed since Bonner, so we must follow our own precedent.Because there is no evidence of the value of the truck stolen by appellant, we conclude that the trial court properly refused the request for an instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft.Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first issue.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In his second issue, appellant asserts a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, complaining of his counsel's failure to elicit testimony about the value of the stolen truck.But for this failure, appellant contends that the trial court would have granted his requested instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft.

We examine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984).Under Strickland,appellant must...