Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arnulfo Jose Castillo v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-17-00218-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 28, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Arnulfo Jose Castillo was found guilty of robbery, a second-degree felony, by a jury, which sentenced him to five years of confinement and ordered him to pay court costs and attorney's fees. Castillo appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request for jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor theft and misdemeanor assault. The evidence presented at trial showed that Castillo, along with a woman and a child, shoplifted items from Walmart. An asset protection associate, Benjamin Alexander, witnessed Castillo and the woman concealing merchandise and attempting to exit the store without paying. When confronted, Castillo attempted to flee, allegedly assaulted Alexander, and ultimately left the scene with the child. Stolen items were later found in Castillo's vehicle. The appellate court applied a two-step analysis to assess whether Castillo was entitled to instructions on the lesser included offenses. First, it confirmed that theft and assault qualify as lesser included offenses of robbery under Texas law. Second, it noted that the evidence could rationally support a finding that Castillo was guilty only of the lesser offenses, based on the value of the stolen items and his actions during the incident. Despite this, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, indicating that the denial of the lesser included offense instructions was not erroneous. The legal analysis reviews an indictment alleging that the Appellant committed robbery by causing bodily injury to Benjamin Alexander during the commission of theft. The indictment includes the statutory element of "in the course of committing theft," establishing that theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Similarly, assault is also considered a lesser included offense of robbery when the indictment alleges causing bodily injury. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the theft and assault were separate incidents, which is necessary for requesting instructions for lesser included offenses of misdemeanor theft and assault. Merely disbelieving evidence related to the greater offense of robbery is insufficient; the Appellant must provide evidence that negates the aggravating element of robbery or shows that the evidence is so weak it lacks probative value. The Appellant argued that he had completed the theft before the assault, as he disposed of the stolen items and returned to assault Alexander. However, the robbery statute broadly defines "in the course of committing theft" to include actions occurring immediately before, during, or after a theft. The court noted that the time lapse between the theft and the assault was approximately one minute, allowing the jury to reasonably conclude that the assault occurred in immediate flight after the theft, thereby supporting the robbery charge. Appellant's return to his vehicle with some stolen items does not constitute an intervening circumstance that would sever the connection between the theft and the subsequent assault. The evidence indicates that Appellant remained near the Walmart store and immediately assaulted Alexander after the theft, suggesting a continuous chain of events. Appellant's argument that Alexander’s testimony supports a break in the chain is unpersuasive; although Alexander mentioned Appellant was "running," he also indicated Appellant had not successfully escaped and might still have stolen items on him. Additionally, testimony from Kevin Webb, an asset protection manager, did not establish that Appellant had completed the theft and escaped, as Webb only confirmed Appellant fled the scene but remained nearby. The trial court correctly declined to present charges for lesser included offenses, as there was no evidence to suggest Appellant's actions constituted only minor theft or assault. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.