Humberto Rodriguez, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County

NUMBER 13-00-771-CR

 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Rodriguez
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ya ez

Appellant, Humberto Rodriguez, Jr., was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and capital murder. Because the State did not seek the death penalty for the capital murder, the jury sentenced him to twenty-eight years' confinement for the aggravated kidnapping, and life imprisonment for the capital murder. On remand, we affirm.

Procedural Background

On direct appeal following his conviction, appellant raised seven points of error, including his first point, in which he argued that the State lacked jurisdiction to charge him with capital murder. A panel of this Court held that the State did not have territorial jurisdiction over the capital murder offense, reversed appellant's capital murder conviction, and overruled appellant's remaining points of error. (1)

On the State's petition for discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that because the kidnapping was an element of the capital murder and the kidnapping occurred in Texas, the jurisdictional requirements of section 1.04(a)(1) of the penal code were met, and therefore, the State has jurisdiction over the capital murder offense. The court of criminal appeals reversed this Court's judgment as to the capital murder conviction, and remanded to us for further action. (2)

Analysis

In his first point, appellant argues that because none of the elements of capital murder occurred in Texas, the State lacks jurisdiction over the offense. We disagree.

Section 1.04(a)(1) of the penal code provides for territorial jurisdiction "if either the conduct or a result that is an element of the offense occurs inside this state." (3) Thus, the State has jurisdiction if either the "result" element or the "conduct" element of the offense occurred in Texas. (4) As the court of criminal appeals noted, "under our case law, the aggravating 'nature of circumstances and/or nature of conduct elements' are elements of the offense of capital murder." (5) In the present case, "[t]he kidnapping was the required aggravating 'nature of conduct' element that elevated the offense of murder to capital murder." (6) Because the kidnapping occurred in Texas, Texas has territorial jurisdiction over the capital murder offense. (7) We overrule appellant's first point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

LINDA REYNA YA EZ,

Justice

 

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Memorandum Opinion on Remand delivered

and filed this the 18th day of October, 2007.

 

1. Rodriguez v. State, No. 13-00-771-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 6962 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi August 14, 2003), rev'd and remanded, 146 S.W.3d 674, 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

2. Rodriguez, 146 S.W.3d at 677.

3. Id. at 675 (quoting Tex. Penal Code Ann. 1.04(a)(1) (Vernon 2003)).

4. Id. at 676.

5. Id. at 677 (citing Reyes v. State, 84 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).

6. Id.

7. Id.