Daniel Domineque Jaquez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0404-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 16, 2007
______________________________
DANIEL DOMINIQUE JAQUEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 53,032-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Daniel Dominique Jaquez appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. In one
issue, he contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to amend the indictment
on the day of trial. The amendment consisted of correcting the date of a prior conviction
pled for enhancement purposes. We affirm the judgment.
As previously mentioned, the State sought to amend the indictment to correct the
date of the prior conviction pled in the enhancement paragraph. Notice of its intent to do
so was sent to appellant’s trial counsel, and the latter admitted to having received it ten
days before trial. Nonetheless, appellant objected when effort was made, on the day of
trial, to formally amend the charging instrument. Before us, he asserts that the effort failed
to comply with art. 28.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure for the provision does
not allow amendment on the day of trial. We overrule the issue.
Authority also holds that while prior convictions used for enhancement purposes
must be pled in some form, they need not be pled in the indictment. Villescas v. State, 189
S.W.3d 290, 292-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997); Johnson v. State, 214 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2007, no
pet.). So too are we told not only that the deletion of surplusage from an indictment falls
outside the requirements of art. 28.10 but also that surplusage encompasses language
unessential to the validity of the indictment. Johnson v. State, 214 S.W.3d at 158. Since
enhancement paragraphs need not be pled in the indictment, it logically follows that they
are unessential to the validity of the instrument and comparable to surplusage for purposes
of art. 28.10. Id. As a result, we conclude that modifying the date in the enhancement
paragraph here does not implicate art. 28.10 and, therefore, the trial court did not violate
the terms of that provision. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
