Summary
The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Daniel Saucedo’s first-degree aggravated-assault conviction and forty-five-year sentence as modified. The court held that the trial court properly excluded defense exhibits depicting writings because the writings were not authenticated. It modified the bill of costs to remove a $250 DNA fee and modified the judgment to correct the statutory offense reference and remove inaccurate language concerning a contested guilt-innocence trial.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the photographs because the crime-scene technician authenticated only the photographs, not the writings depicted in them. The exhibits lacked evidence establishing who authored the writings or when they were created.
- The bill of costs had to be modified to delete the $250 DNA fee because the statute authorizing that fee had been repealed before the offense occurred.
- The judgment had to be modified to replace the burglary statute citation with Texas Penal Code section 22.02(b)(1), the provision applicable to Saucedo's aggravated-assault conviction.
- The court properly retained the word "guilty" in the jury-verdict field because the jury was instructed to and did find Saucedo guilty, notwithstanding his guilty plea.
- The judgment had to be modified to strike language stating that the jury heard evidence and determined Saucedo's guilt or innocence because the record reflected a guilty plea rather than a contested guilt-innocence trial.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Defense Exhibits 16 through 21 as unauthenticated hearsay.
- Whether the bill of costs should be modified to delete the $250 DNA fee.
- Whether the judgment should be modified to state the correct statutory offense provision.
- Whether the judgment should replace the jury's guilty verdict with "N/A" because Saucedo pleaded guilty.
- Whether the judgment should be modified to remove language incorrectly describing a contested jury trial on guilt-innocence.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)(followed)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…