This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was involved in an altercation with police officers responding to a report of a man with a gun at a bar. The Defendant aggressively approached the officers, refused to comply with their orders, and physically resisted arrest. During the incident, the Defendant chest-butted one officer and later kicked the same officer in the shin while being restrained (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Hidalgo County: The Defendant was convicted of battery upon a peace officer, assault upon a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) his convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the assault and battery charges; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to a failure to investigate and call corroborating witnesses (para 2).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. The State also argued that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy.
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer violate the Double Jeopardy Clause?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for assault and battery on a peace officer?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer was vacated due to a double jeopardy violation (para 23).
- The convictions for assault and battery on a peace officer were affirmed (paras 27-29).
- The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not decided due to an insufficient record (para 30).
Reasons
Per Robinson J. (Sutin CJ and Pickard J. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The Court applied the two-part "Swafford test" to determine whether the Defendant’s conduct was unitary and whether the Legislature intended multiple punishments. The Court found that the Defendant’s actions of resisting and committing battery on the officer were unitary, as they occurred close in time and space and were part of the same arrest process. Under the "Blockburger test," resisting was deemed a lesser-included offense of battery, and thus, the conviction for resisting was vacated (paras 6-23).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for assault and battery on a peace officer. Testimony from officers established that the Defendant aggressively approached them, chest-butted one officer, and later kicked the same officer in the shin, causing injury. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant’s testimony and infer intent from his actions (paras 24-29).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court declined to rule on this claim, as the record did not contain evidence of a failure to investigate or the existence of additional witnesses. The issue could not be resolved without further factual development (para 30).
The case was remanded to the district court to vacate the conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and to resentence the Defendant accordingly (para 32).