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.
Ruben Isreal Sanchez v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-17-00063-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 17, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ruben Isreal Sanchez was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction arose from an incident in July 2015 where Sanchez stabbed a fifteen-year-old during a fight in an elementary school parking lot. The indictment outlined that Sanchez intentionally or recklessly caused bodily injury using a knife. On February 8, 2017, a jury found him guilty, and during the sentencing phase, Sanchez admitted to a prior aggravated assault. The trial judge confirmed the jury's guilty verdict and stated that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime before sentencing him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Sanchez raised four issues, focusing on the trial court's deadly-weapon finding. He argued that the trial court did not clearly indicate whether it made such a finding, which he believed warranted a remand for clarification. He likened his case to Guthrie-Nail v. State, where the court did not properly address a deadly weapon finding. However, the appellate court distinguished Sanchez's case from Guthrie-Nail, noting that in Sanchez's scenario, the trial judge explicitly recognized the deadly weapon's use during sentencing, satisfying legal requirements for an affirmative finding. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that remand was unnecessary in the present case, as the record clearly supported a deadly-weapon finding upon the jury's guilty verdict for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The indictment explicitly placed the issue before the jury, and the trial judge confirmed the finding both orally and in the signed judgment, stating that a deadly weapon, specifically a knife, was used during the felony. There were no inconsistencies in the indictment, jury verdict, or the trial judge's pronouncements. The appellant raised several issues, claiming that the law regarding deadly-weapon findings was unconstitutionally vague and that unequal treatment among defendants violated equal protection rights under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. However, the State argued that these issues were not preserved for appellate review since the appellant did not make any objections or motions during the trial. The appellant contended that the ambiguity in the verdict negated the need for a contemporaneous objection; nonetheless, the court found no ambiguity and emphasized that constitutional claims must be raised at trial to be preserved. Consequently, the appellant waived his equal protection claim and the vagueness argument, leading the court to overrule his second, third, and fourth issues. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.