Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Nathaniel Armed Melendez, Jr.'s murder conviction and seventy-year sentence. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Melendez acted intentionally or knowingly when he fired ten rounds into a crowded apartment, killing one person and injuring two others. The court also addressed Melendez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper closing argument.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Melendez acted intentionally or knowingly, as required for murder.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request limiting and jury instructions concerning evidence that Melendez shot Catalina and Daniel.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's explanation of intent during closing argument.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a self-defense instruction.
- Whether Melendez preserved his complaints that the State made improper closing arguments by failing to object.
Holdings
- The evidence was legally sufficient for a rational factfinder to find that Melendez acted intentionally or knowingly when he fired ten shots toward people in the apartment and killed Evelyn.
- Melendez failed to establish ineffective assistance because evidence that he shot Catalina and Daniel was same-transaction contextual evidence, not extraneous-offense evidence requiring a limiting instruction.
- Melendez failed to establish ineffective assistance because the prosecutor's statement about intent, considered in context with the remainder of the argument and the jury charge, was not a misstatement of law.
- Melendez failed to establish ineffective assistance because he expressly disclaimed self-defense, denied the culpable mental state necessary for murder, and the undeveloped record permitted a reasonable strategic basis for counsel's decision not to request the instruction.
- Melendez forfeited his complaints concerning the State's closing argument because he did not object or pursue an adverse ruling.
Key quotations
“The specific intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon unless it is reasonably apparent that death or serious bodily injury could not result from the manner of use.” (at 12)
“Based on the record before us, we conclude a rational factfinder could find that Melendez acted intentionally or knowingly when he opened fire, shooting and killing Evelyn, or that he knowingly pulled the trigger while knowing that death or serious bodily harm was a reasonably certain result when he aimed and fired ten bullets toward the people in the apartment.” (at 14)
“Therefore, Melendez was not entitled to any limiting instruction on the use of that evidence.” (at 17)
“To be entitled to the self-defense instruction, Melendez would have to acknowledge his culpability in committing the crime.” (at 22)
“Melendez, therefore, waived his issues pertaining to the State’s closing arguments.” (at 23)
Factual background
At a Fourth of July party in an apartment, Melendez and another attendee carried guns. Melendez fired ten rounds toward people inside the apartment, fatally shooting Evelyn Gumbardo and injuring Catalina and Daniel. Melendez testified that he was anxious, paranoid, and afraid that people at the party were going to harm him, but he acknowledged firing the gun into a group of people and knowing that someone could be injured or killed.
Procedural history
The State indicted and tried Melendez for murder in the 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to seventy years' imprisonment. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.