Magalde, Fernando

Ref No PD 115-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN , TEXAS

RECEIVED M
FERNANDO MAGALDE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS
PETITIONER
APR 17 2015
v.
Abel Acosta, Clerk

THE STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLEE

petoitiion for Discretionary Review of the 8th Court of appeals
El Paso County ,Texas, Appeal No 20110D05035 and the judgment
by the 120th District Court the Honorable Judge Maria-salas

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Parties

Judge
Trial Counsel
Maria-Salas
Attorneys
Prosecutor state
Robert Riley,
Jaime Esparza/ Jaime Gandara
Manuel Arambula, ElPaso publish defender .
Nathan Brown, 500 E, San Antonio, R 501
34th Judicial Dist Attorneys El paso Texas 79901
l?°pIsoST2x§gt9^8lROOm 201 Appellate Counsels
Clara Hernandez,
Penny Lee Anderson
 IK THE COURT. OF CRIMINAL APPEAS
AUSTION , TEXAS

FERNANDO MAGALDE
Petitioner

Ref'd PD 0114-15
V. App NO 08-12-000&3-CR
Trial NO 20110Dd6:|i« i:. -120-2

THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

PETITIONER / PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT

Comes Now Fernando Magalde, Petitioner Pro se,Hereinafter Magalde in the
above styled and Numbered cause to file this petition and Memorandum in
support thereof his petition for Discretionary Review and will show the court
the following
I

FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Magalde was charged in a three count indictment with Robbery
COUNT I, Aggravated Kidnapping COUNT II,And Unlawful ;;use of a motor vehicle
COUNT III, At the trial the jury found him not guilty of Caffit one the Robbery
and Count III, the Unlawful use of a Motor vehicle, The jury also found him
not guilty of the Aggravated Kidnapping Count II, But found him guilty of
the lesser included offense Un4a:W/fulU Restraint1 of Count II (CR 174) at
the punishment phase January 25, 2012 the jury assessed punishment at 365
days jail time and a fine of $4,000 dollars (RR5,233)) (CR 155) Sentencing
was imposed by the Honorable Judge Salas-Mandoza in the same (RR5,237) (CR
11-12 ) Notice of appeal was given an signed on, by Judge Salas-Mendoza January
25, 2011 (CR 135 ) with a second notice filed February 9,2012 (CR 166-167)
II
Magalde appealed his conviction to the 8th court of appeala El Paso Judical
district styled FERNANDO MAGALDE-V.THE STATE OF TEXAS,App NO 08-12-00065 CR
whom in a unpublished opinion affirmed the conviction on March 12,2014 The

-1-
Original date for filing the petition for Discretionary Review was April
27,2014, However a letter was sent to the El Paso Public Defender Office

by petitioner who requested them to file an extension of time ,his letter
was not transmitted to the court of appeals do to a clerical error which
caused the time period for filing of the ( PDR ) to calpse, A motion was
filed by the El Paso Public defender office on June 13,2014 seeking extension
of time, that letter was subsequently denied by the court of criminal appeals
June 16, 2014

Petitioner then filed an application for writ of Habeas Corpus to the court
of criminal appeals pursuant to Article 11.07 of the texas Code of Criminal
Procedural seeking permission to file an out-of-time petition for discretion
ary review ( WRIT NO WR 82-561-01 ) Which was granted in his favor on January
14, 2015 granting him an opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for
discretionary review the courts mandate issued on February 9,2015 A motion
for extension of time was filed by petitioner on January 20,2015 seeking
another extension of time to prepare and file his PETITION WHICH WAS ALSO
GRANTED February 2,2015 which extended to period for filing the ( PDR ) until
may 11, 2015
III
JURISDICTION

This Honorable Court has Subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedural Rules 66.1, 66.3 and 68 as part if its punitive power
to review criminal matter

IV

REQUEST KB ORAL ARGUMENTS

Oral arguments are necessary so that petitioner may better advise the courts
why the error in the courts jury charge rendered the evidences Legally insuff
icient ,,and why the verdict constitutes a violation of due process ,oral
argument will further permit petitioner to show way the opinion of the 8th
court of appeals was also flawed ,that a reversal and Remand is Thus warranted

-2-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover page ••• - •• 0
Factual / Procedural Background .= . . . . . , . ........... . l
Jurisdiction .. .. , ,,...=.. . . , . 2

Request for Oral Arguments .. = = 2
Index of Authorities . . . . . . . .,..,,, 3

Statement of Case ; • - . ,.= . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 5

Statement of Facts . . . . , . . = .„ ,.,.., 5-6

Issues Presented ... - -. - . • . -• 6

Arguments /Authorities -....= ,.............„ . . . 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Supreme Court Cases
Brunks.v.United States,347 U.S 1,96 S.CT.2141,57 L.Ed .2d 1 (1978 )
Hopper.v.Evans, 456 U.S,605,120 S.ct 2049,72.L.Ed.2d.367 (1982 ) ...,».,... 13
In Re Winship 397 U.S.358,90.S.CT .1068.25 L.Ed .368 (1970 ) ... . . .,. , . ., 15
Jacksoh^vlVirginia,443 US 307,318-20 99 S.CT 2781 2788-89 11
Federal Cases

U.S.V. Baker ,.l, 820 F. 2d-2033, 2035 ( 9th Cir 1984 ) , . . , . . , .,...,.. 7
U-S.V.Scroggos,379 -F.3d.233,353,357 (5th Cir 2004 ) . , , , .. , 15

State Cases

Bagnill.v.State,887.S.W.2d.21.(Tex.Crim.App 1998 ) >.,..„ .... ., ,, . ... . -7,8,9
Barnas.v.State,644.S.W. .2d.l. (Tex.Crim.App 1981 ) - - ••• • - 13
Benavides.v.State,763-S.W.2d.587,589.(Tex.App.Corpus.Christi 1988 pet Ref'd). . 7
Brinage.v.State,918 S.W. 2d at 644,675,76 (Tex.Crim.App 1994 ), - ... ,. ,,.. = = 14
Brooks, v-State, 323.S.W. 3d at 894,95 (Tex. Crim.App 2009 ) ........ .. .. . ... 21
Curry-v.State-966.S.W. 2d 203 ( Tex.App El Paso 1998 ) ., .. .. .. . ,., .... ..... 9
Doyles.v.State,632 S.W. 2d a 732,788 ( Tex. Crim.App 1982 ),....=,.-... .. 13
Gollihar-v.State,46 S.W. 2d at 243. (Tex.Crim.App 20001 ) , . 22,13
Griffith.v.State, 976 S.W. 2d.686,690 ( Tex.App.Tyler pet Ref'd ) . .-23
Hampton.v.State,165.S.W. 3d 691 ( Tex.App Houst [1st Dist] 2005 ) ,.., ,... .. . , q
Holcomb.v.State. 745 S.W. 2d 903 ( Tex.Crim.App 1988 ) .. « , ,.. . ... ., ... . .- =. 22
Johnson.v.State.84 S.W. 3d 724 ( Tex.App Houst [1st Dist] 2002)) „ . 21
Jordan.v.State.639 S.W. 2d 477,478 ( Tex.Crim.App 1982 )............ . . 24
Kieschnick.v.State.911 S?W? 2d ...156,161 ( Tex.App Waco 1995 ) ,...,..,,.. 21
Kulzner.v-State.994 S?.W2d. 180.184 ( Tex.Crim.App. 19999) -. ,. 21

-3-
MoCantim.v.State, 647 S.W. 2d at 100 ( Tex.Crim.App 1983 ) 8
Newton.v'.State,648.S.W. 2d 693,694 ( Tex.Crim.App 994 ) 12
Cchca.v.State,955. S.W. 2d at 92,93 (Tex.Crim.App.1984 ) 6
Rezac.v.State, 782 S.W. 2d 869,870 ( Tex.Crim.App 1990 ) 13
Richarder.v.State,832 S.W. 2d at 171 ( Tex.Crim.App 1998 ) 12
RRousseau.v.State.855 .S.W. 2d 666,673.(Tex.Crim.-App 1993 ) 7
Royster.v.State, 622.S.W. 2d 980 (Tex.Crim.App 1984 ) .7
Seanz.v.State,131.S.W.3d 43. (Tex.App.San.Antinio.2003 ) ,...-'12
Trujillo.v.State,227.S.W..3d 164 (Tex.App.Houst [1st Dist]2006 ) -t JO, .
Westbrook-v.State,29.S.W.3d 103,113 (Tex.Crim.App 2000) 8

Statutes / Penal Codes ...-.,

Art 37.08 T.C.CP 12

Art 37.09 T.C.G.P 8

Art 21.24 (a) & (b) - - - 12
§ 2.01 ....... 7
§20.01(2)West 2003 ) •• 9
§20.02(a) (West) 2003 - • 9
§20.04(a) , •• • • -= - •• - •••• - • - 10
§6.03 (b) 10
. §1.07(5)atl34 (1985 J .... . 12

Conclusion 14

Prayer For Relief 15
Certuficate of Service 15

-4-
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Magalde is Appealing lithe opinion of the 8th Court of Appeals
Appeal Number 08—12-00065-CR which affirmed his conviction March 12,2014
for the 120th Judicial District Court El Paso County,Texas for Unlawful Rest
raint ( RR4,98) CR at 147 ) A Class A Misdemeanor L . Trial NO 20110D00050-
35-120-2, Holding that the Evidence where sufficient to support the jurys
findings of guilt as to the Lesser included offense ; ( 8th ct App Brief at
page 3-7 )

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner trial bagan on January 20, 2012 during trial the complainant Ms
mslissa Maribel Ferrera testified that on the 17th of July 2010 she and the
petitioner Mr Fernendo Magalde had been dating since 2004, and had two children
(RR3, 61) On the date in question Ms Ferrera testified that she and Magalde
where at a friends house, Later in the evening they all decided to go to
a festival in San Elizario ,Texas (RR3, 69) She stated that although Magalde
was drinking alcohol she allowed him to drive her vehicle in which she one
of there two doughter rode with her and Magalde (RR3, 71 ) Once they arrived
at the Kermes festival, Ms Ferrera and :.:Magalde got in to an argument (RR3,9
SHE TESTIFIED SHE REFUSED TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND ATTEND THE FESTIVAL

WITH Magalde , Because he'd been, been drinking and appeared very ;Drunk and
she knew him to become very jealous when he's with her, Ms Ferrera.testified
that petitioner Magalde started the vehicle and begain to drive off ,she
turnned her head to the side and away from him, and thats when Magalde struck
her on Jthe side of her head (RR3,71 ) she also testified that she didn't
want to go with Magalde and started to get out the vehicle ,Because she knew
that he would continue, to hit her, (RR3,72 ) But when she attempted to get
out petitioner Magalde grabbed her by the hair, ( RR3, 71-72 ) Ms Ferrera
testified that she attempted to Call 911, on her cell phone for assistance
But', before she could dial the number Magalde took her cell phone away from
her ( RR3, 72-73 ) and began to drive toware his mother house,She testified
that as he drove he continued to grabbing her hair to prevent her from-exiting
the vehicle, Once they arrived at his mother house he told her to stay put,
while he took their four year old doughter inside (RR3,73-74 ) Ms Ferrera

-5-.
testified that she got out the vehicle and begain to run away, But petitioner
cought her and began assaulting and hitting her some more until ,his mother
came and intervened by standing between then to protect her , Ms Ferrera
testified she then went in to petitioner mother's house and got a Knift from
the kitchen in order tp protect herself,(RR 3, 74-75 ) and told petitioner
to stay away from her, at which point he got in the vehicle and left ( RR3,76)
In addition Ms Ferrera testified that she asks petitioner to give her ,her
belongings such as her Purse,Money ,ID Card and other things,^but he just drove
away, she testified that petitioner mother didn't have a phone in her house
,So she and her doughter walked about three blocks before finding a person
to whom let her use there phone to call 911 ( RR 77-79 )

when deputy from the El paso police Department arrived , she testified she
begain explaining to officer what happen ( RR3, 80 ) One of petitioner friends
dropped off her other doughters deputy then took her,,her children back to
her house in El Paso ( RR3/77«79)Ms Ferrera testified that she didn't have
keys to her house and feared petitioner would return so the deputy helped
her secure her house by blocking the front door with a sofa (RR3, 82-83)

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

TEE EVIDENCE ARE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER CONVICTION
FOR THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT

Petitioner challenges the opinion of the 8th court of appeals and it's evaluat
ion of his insufficiency of the evidence claim to support his criminal convict
ion, He claim that the trial court improperly submitted the charge on the
Lesser included offense,even though it was not raised by or from the evidence
presented at trial, He argues that the 8th court of appeal did not considec
the two prong test implemented by the Court of Criminal Appeals, when deter
mining whether the evidences where Legally sufficient to support his Con
viction ,and asks this Honorable Court to Grant his Petition for discretionary
Review in the interest of justice, and will demonstrate the Verdict was
so against the great weight and prepondrance of the evidence to be clearly

Footnote

1, Ochoa.v.State,955.S.W.2d.389.392-93 (Tex.Crim.App.1984 ) Cchca challenge the legal sufficient
of the evidence to support his conviction en the Lesser included offense in a Sexual Assault
case in which the court improperly submitted a charge en Sexual Assault as a Lesser to the
Agg'Sexual Assault, Hampton .v.State,165 S.W.3d at 691 (Tex.App Houst [1st Dist] 2005

-6-
wrong and manifestly unjust,that.the Conviction cannot stand,U.S.v.Backer
720 F.2d.2033,2035.( 9th.Cir.1984 )

ARGUMENTS / AUTHORITIES

Petitioner Argues that the 8th Court of Appeals failed to review the sufficiensy
of the evidence by looking at the elements of the charging offense as incorp
orated in the courts charge to the jury, Benavides.v.State/763 S.W. 2d.587
588-89 ( Tex.App Corpus.Christi.1988) Pet Ref'd ), in its consideration
of the Legally sufficient of the evidence claim , The Fourteenth Amendment
of our Constitution houses due process protection in which theU.S Supreme
Court [has] determine requires ,that the jury must find each and every element
of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, Our Penal Code , also
requires that no person may be convicted of an offense , Unless each and
every element of that offense is.proved,TEX.PENAL CODE §2.01

The record reflects that petitioner made an objection to the courts charge
on Aggravated Kidnapping (RR4, at 25-26 ) that was overruled by the trial
court,petitioner counsel argued that the trial court should not charge the
jury ,because a charge on Aggravated Kidnapping wasn't warranted, given
the circumstance of petitioner action. However the trial court submitted
and instruction on that offense as well as the Lesser included offense "Unla
wful Restraint" ( RR4 at 26-27 ) which is at issue here,He claims that the
charge was improper and. was Abuse of discretion on part of the trial court
for ignoring petitoner due process ,

In determining whether to charge a jury on a Lesser included offense a two
prong test [ Must ] be satisfied, First step requires that the lesser includ
ed be within proof necessary to establish the greater offense,Royster.v.State,
622..S.W.2d.980 (Tex.Crim.App.1984 ), The second step requires that there
be some evidences exist in the record directly [ Germane ] to the lesser
included offene,Rousseau.v.State,855 •. S.W...2d.666,673. (Tex.Crim-App. 1993 )
Both prongs must be met and applys equally to the state as well as defendant
if evidence presented at . trial will no[t] raise an issue of a lesser offense
the court need not charge the jury on the lesser included offense,, Bignall.v.
State/887 S.W. 2d.21,24.( Tex.Crim.App.1994 ) merely because it is within

FOOTNOTE

2, Hapten. 2.v.State 165.S.W.3d.691.( Tex.App-Houst. [1st Dist] 2005 Hapten challenged the legal
sufficient of the evidence to support his conviction, Based on an improper charge on a lesser
included offense ,The court agreed with hanpton the charge was improper and reversed ,Remand
hatipton conviction for Sexual Assault,

-7-
proof necessary to establish the greater , the second prong of the two prong
test is preserved for the integrity of the jury as the fact finder by ensuring
that juror are [ Only ] instructed on a lesser included offense when the
evidences Constitutes it as a Valid alternative to the charging offense ,
Westbrook^v.State,29 S.W. 3d at. 103.113.(Tex.Crim.App 2000) Also ARTICLE
37,08 AND 37.09 T.C.CP. " which Authorize that a jury may not convict the
accused of a lesser included offense, unless the evidences reasonably justify
them in doing so.

Petitioner will no[t] challenge the first prong of the two pact test, Unlawful
Restraint, is a lesser included of the charging offense,,therefore this
Honorable court need only determine whether the second prong was satisfied
and must do so by determining ,if the record contains sufficient evidence
to support First the trial court submission of the lesser included offense
it must find that evidences show that ,If petitioner was guilty, he was
3
guilty [ONLY ] of the Lesser offense of " Unlawful Restraint", He argues
that it is no[t] enough that the jury may disbelieve crucial evidence pretain-
ing to the greater offense ,McCantion.v.State,.647. -S-W.2d. 100. (Tex.Crim.App
1983 ) the evidence must be directly germane to his guilt ,in shortbefore
4
a charge is warranted the two prong must be satisfied ^Aid.-r.lOO-iThereLmust-

FOOTNOTE

3, Hub the defendant .denieds comiissicn.offany., offense and.,therefore presents no evidence
eslabishing ccnrmssion of a lesser lnclueed offense IneJ is no|tj entitled a charge on
the lesser offense Bignall-v.State 887 S-W. 2d at 21,24 ( Tex.Crim-App 1994 )
-4,Magalde was not entitled to a lesser offense instruction ;nore was the state simple because
the jury may choose to disbelieve his story ,does not of itself create a right to a lesser in-
:cluded offense charge, Fraga.v-State,940 S:W. 2d 736,738, ( Tex.App San Antinio 1997 ) to hold
otherwise is tantamunt to consideration of evidence outside the record andwould be a Broad rul-
iing for the courts to be allowed to submit a lesser offense even those not raised marely ocuse
there is a possibilily there was only a lesser offense acnmitted
5, because the record indicates the a tine objection was made ,this error was therefore preserved
for appellate review, the 8th court of appeals wtherefore err in not assigning the error in its
review of petitioner insufficient of the evidence claim under the Jackson -v.Virginia standard
Id 99.S-CT2792 (1998)

-8-
be evidence pointing directly./ to his guilt only of the lesser included offense
Jackson.v.State, 115 S.W. 3d at 326 ( Tex. Crim.App. 1991 )., the issue Is no[t]
resolved by merely determining that the crime charged includes a lesser offense
at the trial of this cause petitioner objected to trial courts instruction
on Robbery and Aggravated Kidnapping ( RR4, 4-5-13-20-23 ) during discussion
out side presences of the jury ,i.despite oral arguments trial Court overruled
thoses objections*Johnson.v.State 84 S.W. 3d at 724 ( Tex. App. Houst [1st
Dist] 2002 ) ,In order to satisfy the second prong the evidence at trial
must throw doubt upon the greater offense ,If the accussed presents no evidence
that he committed the offense 'or' presents no evidence to the contrary,and
theres no evidence that show otherwise that he's guilty [Only] of the Lesser
included offense the trial court is [N]ot under any duty to submit instruction
on a Lesser offense,Bignall.v.State 887 S.W. 2d at 21 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998 Re
gardless of who request the lesser offense instruction,the charge must no[t]
cConstitute and invitation for the jury to reach a Compromise or otherwise
unwarranted verdict as it did here,"

To warrant a charge on unlawful Restraint evidence [Must] have been directly
[ Germane] to petitioner's guilt Onl[y] of the Lesser offense,As mention
above the indictment charges petitioner with Aggravated Kidnapping Count
II under Section 20.04(a) of the Penal Code, Aggravated Kidnapping is a
complete offense when restriant is accomplished ,we're there's evidences
of the actor specific intent to prevent liberation of the Victim,by secreting
or use or threateed the use of deadly force.V.T.C-A Penal Code § 20.01(2)west
2003 ) Citing Curry.v.State,966 S.W. 2d 203 ( Tex. App El Paso 1998) Abduct
ion means to Restraint, ,Here the state was also Required to prove in order
to show the Lesser included offense of^unlawfulrLReaftraiWfe^^Had to.ishowc&r.
fiSQve-rU...•: that petitioner " intentionally ,or, "Knowingly restrains another
person Melissa Ferrera by restricting her movement without her consent,so
as to interfere substailly with her "liberty" by moving Melissa Ferrera from
one place to another "or" by confining Ms Ferrera TEX.PEN.CODE ANN § 20.02
(a)(West 2011 ) in this context Restraint is without consent ,if it is acc
omplished by "force,intimidation,or deception Id at § 20.01(1) (A)
FOOTNOTE
6,when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenge under state Law, appellate courts.measure
the evidentiary sufficiency against the elements of the offense as defiend by the hypothicaly
correct jury charge Gollihar.v.State.46.S.W. 3d.243 ( Tex.Crim.App.2001 )

-9-
A person acts intentionally 'or' with intent with respect to the nature of
his conduct 'or' to a result of his conduct when it is his conseious objection
or' desire to engage in the conduct 'or' cause the result ,A person acts
knowingly ,or, with Knowledge with respect to the nature of there conduct,or,
to the circumstances surrounding their conduct when he or she is aware of
the conduct ,and circumstance exist that the acts knowingly or with knowledge
with respect to a result of their conduct when ..when aware that there conduct
is reasonably to creat the results^ The record reveals the complainant will-.
ingly left the friends house with Mr Magalde and one of there two doughter
to go to a festival in San Elizario,Texas Ms Ferrera,her dls^hter; rode with
petitioner Magalde who drive her vehicle ,Once they arrived there Complainant
and Mr Magalde got into an argument /Complainant then refused to get out
the vehicle, and attend the festival ,because petitioner was drunk which some
times caused a problem, because he would become very jealous when with her,
after she refused to get out petitioner started the vehicle again and begain
to drive off away from the festival, Conplainant turned her head away from
him and he struct her on the side of her head, /Complainant then decided
she dyah£;ed to exist the vehicle ,although it was moving , But petitioner
grabbed her hair pulling her back to provent her from jumping out the moving
8
vehicle, ConplalilaBtn:attempted calling 911, Bat her phone was taken away from
her, petitioner drove to toware his mother house/once there he told complainant
to stay in the vehicle while he took their four.- year old doughter inside,But
complainant got out the vehicle and beaginto run away but was stopped ,and
further assaulted by petitioner until he 's mother came out and stood between-
then to protect complainant from being further hit or assaulted by Magalde
complainant when got a knief from magalde mother house came back told him
to leave her along, he got in the vehicle and drove it away, ,

from this evidence ,its clear that a charge on Unlawfull Restraint wasn't
warranted.;..?^", that trial court clearly abused it's discretion submitting
it,9 Trujilo.v.State, 227 S.W. 3d at 164,168 ( Tex,App-Houst [1st Dist]2006)
it is for this reason the evidence is insufficient to support the jurys verdict
and finding that if he was guilty ,h'e was guilty only of the lesser offense ,.,
FOOTNOTE

7, Tex Penal Code § 20.02 (a)
:8, Texas Penal Code § 6.03(b)
9, The jury could no[t] have reasonable concluded that petitioner intentionally or Knowingly
restrained.1'; i Ferrera, simply, cause he pulled her hair

-10-
petitioner Constitutional rights to due process where effected by this error
while the record indicates no specific objection other then to the courts
charge on Kidnapping (RR4,23-24-27 ) the sufficiency of the evidence is
measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically corr
ect jury charge under the jackson standard, the reviewing court are to review
evidences in the record in the light most favorable to the jurys verdict,and
determine whether a rational jury could have found each element of the offense
was proven beyond a reasonable doubt,Jaskcon.v.Virginia,443 U.S-307,318-20,99
S.CT,2781,2788-89,61 L.Ed,2d 560 (1979) the court recognizes the jury as
the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witness testimony as
the ultimate fact finder, and the reviewing court presumes that the jury
resolved any conflict in the evidence in favor of the. verdict,so long as
such resolution is rational, the appeals court will no[t] defer to the resolut
ion. Brooks, v. State/323 SrW- 3d at 894-95 (Tex.Crim.App 20009 ) ,
A jurys verdict and Judgment will be set aside ,if the evidence supporting
guilt is so obviously weak 'or' the contrary evidence is so over whelmingly
it out weighs the supporting evidence, Petitioner asks the court to look
to the charge and how it improperly instructs juror, First it doesn't charge
the Aggravated. Kidnapping in Count II of the indictment as [COUNT],Rather
it instructs juror to find petitioner guilty in paragraph B, the following
Error Occurred after it instruct then to find Magalde guilty by signing
form A, , it go's on to tell them to proceed to consider ];.p§iV.Sgraph B, which
lis" Aggravated Kidnapping charge COUNT II, unless you so find beyond a reason
able doubt or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof ,you will find the
defendant Fernando Magalde Not guity of Robbery as charge in the indictment
signing (verdict form B )Then next proceed to consider paragraph B,Paragraph
B, of the charge Reads the following ,
if you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt ,find that on or about
the 17th day of July 2010, in El Paso County,Texas the defendant Fernando
Magalde did then and there intentionally or knowingly abduct another person
Melissa Ferrera /Hereinafter referred to as the Complianant^iby secaeingc.
" or" holding the complainant in a place were the complainant was notlikely
FOOTNOTE —••

10/in Kieschnick.v.State,911 S.W. 2d 156,161 (Tex-App waoo.1995 ) The Court of Appeals concluded
that although kieschnick^did not raise an objection to the charge error raised en appeal .for
first time,it nonetheless ccncluded it had no choice, But to Reverse Remand the judgment
11/ The standard of review is the sane for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases,Kutzner
.v.State,994.S.W.3Then Nsxt proceed
to consider paragraph C, Unauthorized use of a Motor vehicle,' ..Unless you
so find beyond a reasonable doubt or> if you have a reasonable doubt thereof
or if you are unable to agree, Next proceed to consider "Unlawfull Restraint'.
... Now /if you find from the evidence ^beyond a reasonable doubt that
on or about the 17th day of July 2010 in El Paso County/Texas, the defendant
/Fernando Magalde did and there intentionally or knowingly Restraint another
person, Melissa Ferrera then you will find the defendant guilty of Unlawful
Restraintiby using ( Verdict form D) then next proceed to consider paragraph
C, Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle ) ..--Unless you so find beyond a
reasonable doubt ,or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof youwill find
the defendant Fernando Magalde ,Not guilty of All Charges related to the
Aggravated Kidnapping by using (Verdict form E ) then Next proceed to consider
paragraph C, (Unauthorized use of a Motor! Vehicle )

As the court is able to see , the jury instruction improperly included the
term or"gRhf"asa" paragraph to charge the commission of the offense's ..Rather
then using the term ( COUNT) Which is what is used to charge an offense Citing
Seanz.v.State/131 S.W- 3d at 43 ( Tex. App San Antinio 2003 ) And ARTICLE
21.24(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal. Procedure^eheiphrase paragraph is used
to submit the Aggaravte Kidnapping offense shown in Paragraph B, of the courts
charge which does no[t] go on to instruct juror to next consider the offense'
of Unlawful Restraint as a Lesser included of COUNT II as in[ PARAGRAPH
1 or 2 Etc, Here Unlawful Restraint is improperly misjoi*id,And therefore
the paragraph that charged Aggravated Kidnapping charges more then one offense

Holcamb.v.State,745 S.W.. 2d at 903 ( Tex. Crim.App 1983 ) a fair reading
of Article 21.24(a)(b) along with Art 3.01,3.02.x>f the Penal Code,separate acts
or offense of a different penal statute may be charge in a single indictment so
long as those offense are charged in separate COUNTS/ No paragraph may charge
more then on[e] offense, Here the charge does just that /Therefore Constituts
an invitation to the jury to come to a compromise or otherwise unwarranted
verdict ( Model Penal Code § 1.07(5) at 134 (1985) Article 37.08 T.C.C.P
FOOTNOTE

12 Richarder.v.State,832 S.W. 2d at 171, ( Tex.Crim.App 1998 )
13,even a pretrial failure of the charge to state the correct law of the offense to
the facts of the case infringes on the accuseds federal and State Constitutional rights to
due procass,due course of Law Newton.v.State,548 S.W. 2d 693,694 ( Tex.App 1983 )

-12-
petitioner claims that we, the Reviewing Court should Reverse and Remand
the decision of the 8th Court of Appeals and its /.holding that the evidence
where legally sufficient to sustain his conviction, Although no specific
objection was made ,The 8th court of appeals Erred in Not assigning Error
to the Erroneous flaws in the courts jury charge as part of its Judicial
Authoiritysuv:' granted power ,Barnas.v.State,644 S.W. 2d at 1, Rezac.v.State 782
S.W. 2d 869,870 ( Tex.Crim.App 1990 )in evalating his claim on appeal.

Since the evidence is measured for sufficiency; by looking at the indictment
as incorporated in the courts charges to the jury , Benavides.v.State,763 S.W.
2d .587,588-89 (Tex.App Corpus Christi 1988 pet Ref'd) The:ireviewing':GouifkK
examine the whole charge and consider the workable relationship between the
abstrack part of abstract law to the facts of the case, Griffith.v.State 976
S.W. 2d 686,690 ( Tex.App.Tyler pet Ref'd ) and should ultimalely asks whether
a nautral review of [ all ] the evidence both for and agains't the finding
demonstrates proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence
in the jury's determination,as the fact finder^the jury may use common sence
and apply common knowledge?observation, and experience gained,in the ordinary
affairs of life, when giving effect to the inferences that may reasonably
13
be drown from the evidence.

The jury is Bound by the evidences and should therefore be limited to those
included offenses in which a reasonable view of the evidence will sustain.,

as such juror or no[t] to be free to pick and choose what offense the accused
should be found guilty of—and cannot be given the freedom to legally convict
the accused of a lesser included offense merely out of sympathy or for the
purposes of reaching a verdict , the charge here on /"Unlawful Restraint" only
invitated juror to more or less come to a compromise and Unwarranted verdict
after reviewing the evidence in the light must favorable to the verdict,This
court should agree with petitioner that, Based on the charged error no rational
trier of reasonable fact finder could have found the essential elements of

Unlawful Restraint beyond a reasonable doubt / even if the proof of guilty
although appears adequate , .if. taken alone it is greatly ouifc'. weight by the
contrary proof so that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard could not have
been met, Hopper.v.Evans,456 U.S. 605,120 S.CT 2049,72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982)

FOOTNOTE

Tbe due process requires that a jury only be instructed en a Lesser offense when the evidence
raises the issue Article 36.14 V.C.C.P PLACES A DKTY on the trial judge to prepare a correct
charge Lcyle.v.State,631 -S.W.2a.732-738( Tex.Crim.App 1982 )

-13-
when the state fails to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable
doubt ,if a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidences is sustained /petit
ioner would be entitled an Acquittal /Jordan.v.State,639 S.W. 2d at 477,478
( Texa.Crim.App.1982 ) Also See Burnks.v.United States,347 U.S,1, 96 S.CT,2141
57 L.Ed .2d.l (1978 )

In Brinage.v.State,918 -S.W. 2dat 644,475,76 ( Tex.Crim.App.1994 ) The court
of Criminal Appeals held that the state must prove that a Restraint was Comp
leted and that the petitioner evidenced a specific intent to prevent liberation
by either secretion or deadly force, grabbing the Complainant by the hair
and pulling her back to prevent her from jumping out the moving vehicle ,in
an efford to prevent her from possibility being hit ,ran over by another
vehicle and Seriously hurt, and telling her to stay in the vehicle after that
reached his mother house doesn't qualify as evidences preventing her liberat
ion by secretion or deadly forced

For theses reasons delineated above petitioner would agpesj that the evidence
were leagally insufficient for the 8th court of Appeals to sustain his convi
ction

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore ,Premises Considered petitioners prays that his Judgment of the
120th District Court,and The Opinion of the 8th Court of Appeal .V/be Reversed
and Remanded with an order for the trial court to enter a Judgment of Acquittal

RESPECTFULLY Submitted

Fernando Magalde
TDCJ-ID NO 01828858
McConnell Unit
3001 S,Emily DR
Beeville Texas 78102
H/ [0 / 2015
FOOTNOTE

14, in re winship 397 U.S 358,,90 S.CT 1068,25 L,Ed 368 ( 1970 ) Ths offense therefore must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt

-14-
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,Fernando Magalde ,hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fore
going Petition for Discretionary Review was mailed to the clerk of the Court
of Criminal Appeals P.O.Box 12308 Captol Station Austin,Texas 78711,by place-
ing the same in the Mail Postage Box her at the McConnell Unit 3001 S,Emily DR
Beeville,Texas 78102 ,0n the dayi$fJ£LL_ and date of 10 2015

Respectfully. Submitted

#01828058
McConnell Unit
3001 S,Emily DR
Beeville,Texas 78102
4 / f0 / 2015

15
 Case No.
(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.)

IN froCOURt OF-CRIMIN AL: APPEALS- OF TEXAS '

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION
UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07

i,.vi™. Fernando Magalde
NAME: •— _—

DATE OF BIRTH*

PLACED CONFINEMENT: McConnell Unit

tbCJ-PD;3StJMBER:- ;01828Q5{j ;/. -. :SID/NtJMBER::; :.
(1) This application concerns (check all thai/apply):

D a convictei: • • parple;

P a sentence, • ;)^n4ator^:rsuperivisidn'

D time credit 0 out-of-time appeal or petition for
discretipnary review

(2) What district court entered the judgment of the convictionypu/warit reiieffjppm?
(Include the court number and county.)

120th District Court,El paso County Texas

(3) What was the case number in the^trial,court?

20100D06141

(4) What was the name t»f thfe trial judge?

Maria Salas-Mendoza,

Effective: .January 1, :20M

Rev 01/14/14
(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide theattorney'sijiame:

Robert Riley & Jaime Gangara

(6) What was thedate thai;the judgment was entered?

January 25,2012

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?

Unlawful Restraint ___•'-

(8), If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the/same cnurt at
the same time, what counts were,you convicted of and what was the sentence in each
count?

N/A

$| What was the plea ypu entered? (Check one.)

O guilty-open plea D guilty-plea bargain
• not guilty Q nolo contenderelno contest:

Ifypu entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please;explain:
... . N/A

(10) What kind of trial did you have?

• no jury H jiii^foi»guiltand punishment
D jury for guilt, judge for punishment

Rev. 0:1/14/14;
(11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did you testify?

N/A

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction?

EEJ yes- p. no

If ypu did appeal, answer the following questions:

(A) What court ofappeals did you appeal to? 8th Court of Appeals
(B) What was the case number? 08-12-Q0064-CR _ ;

•(C): Wereypu representedby: counsel pn-appeai?; Ifyes, prpwde^the^attprney'fr
name:

M,Clara Hernandez & Penny Lee,Andersen

(D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affirmed March 28,2014
(13) DkI ypu file a petition for disCT^ Court of CriminalAppeals?;

HI yes P no;

ifyon did file a petition for discletiohatyrwiew, answer the following questions:
N/A
•(A) What was the case n umber?;

•(B) Whatwa® the decision andthe diatepf the-decision? , ; N/A.

(14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction?

fi ;yes .•; iio

Ifyou answered yes, answer the following questions:

(A) Whatwas the Court ofCriminal Appeals' writ number? WR 82-561-01

Rev. fit/14/14:
 •(B) Whatwa^the:decision ahd.^e,dateoftherdecisiori? January 2,2015,

(G) Please identify the reason that the current claimsfwere not presented and could
ript have been presented pn ypur previous: application.
Because the Letter that was sent to the El Paso. Public defender office
requesting them to file for and extension of time was not transfered
to the court of appeals ,due to a clerical error which caused the
time period to expire, A Motion seeking out-of-time PRD was denied
by the court of criminal appeals , Jfcine 16,2015 A Hebeas Corpus Applict-
ion was gramted on Janua,ry,,,,,21;12015""'granting- petitioner* H'-TJrian'cir'to
file this out-of-time petitioner for discretionary review now
now before this Honorable Court

(15) Dp ypu currently have any;petition: or appeal pending in any other state pr federal
.court?- .

P:-yess Hi no;

If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number:

N/A J

(16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your
administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution
system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to
any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies)

:• yes! B no.

If you answered yes, answer the following questions:
(A) What date did you present the claim? . . __

(B) DidypnrjBcMve a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision?

N/A

Ifyou answered no, please explain why vou have notsubmitted your claim:

Rev. 01/14/14
 N/A

(17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are
being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each
ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a brief
summary of the facts. Ifyour grounds and brief summaryofthefacts have not been
presented on theform application, the Court will not consideryour grounds.
Ifyou have more than four grounds, use pages 14 and 15 of the form, which you
may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with
each ground numbered in sequence. The recitation of the facts supporting each
ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form.

You may include with the form a memorandum of law ifyou want to present legal
authorities, but the Cpurt will not consider grounds for relief set out in a
memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument
must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73
and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. If you
are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts
pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum.

•5:

Rev. 0M4-Z14
 GROUND'ONE*' Tne evidence is insufficient to support the jurys verdict
and finding of guilt for Unlawful Restraint

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: The 8th court of Appeals did not in
there Review of the sufficiency of the evidence to supporting the jurys finding
considerthe Error in the courts jury charge on the Lesser included offense
that was no[t] warranted by or from the evidences presented at the trial
of this cause and did not take into consideration that Unlawful Restraint
could not have been the results when the complainant witness in this case
admitted that she was together with petitioner at a- friends house before
they all decided the leave and attend the festive ,The complainant rode with
petitioner in her truck to the festive, once they arrived there she refused
ta_ge£_au£_ner_r.ruckJ.pei:ir.ianer_srarted—vehicle In whichshe One 51 fjiere
doughter rode along in and begain driving off ,at some point complainant
truned away from petitioner and according to the complainant petitioner struck
her' on' the'side of her head, at which point she then decided she wanted to
give out the moving vehicle , Once she attempted to do so ./petitioner in
and act to prevent complainant from being ran over or hurt by a passing vehicle
when petitioner begain to drive toward his mother"house the complainant stated
he continued pulling her by the hair, while driving to prevent her from exiting
once that arrived at his mother house ,complainant stated petitioner told
her to stay put , while he: took their tour year old doughter inside, But
she didn't she got out the vehicle and begain running away ,But was stopped
petitioner mother came out the house and got betweeothe two of them to prevent
petitioner for assaulting her , at which point tne complainant-Went Inside
his mother house got a knift from her kitchen and returned ,then told petition
er to stay away from her , at which point petitioner simply got in the vehicle
-a/id drove it away , from this petitioner was charged in a three count indictment
which Robbery Count I Aggravate Kidnapping Count II And Unlawful use of
a M