EX PARTE KEVIN MICHAEL NEILL (Other)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » Court of Criminal Appeals » 2008 » EX PARTE KEVIN MICHAEL NEILL (Other)

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: AP-76,048

Case Date: 11/26/2008

Plaintiff: ROCK HARD, INC. F/K/A SIMPSON-MANN, INC.

Defendant: WENONAH SOCKWELL, INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF L. JOE SOCKWELL, DECEASED--Appeal from Cou

Preview:Michael Anthony Garza v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00078-CR
Michael Anthony GARZA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-CR-0182-A
Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 8, 2004
AFFIRMED
A jury found defendant, Michael Anthony Garza, guilty of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated kidnaping, and
assessed punishment at twenty-five years' and twenty years' confinement, to be served concurrently, and a fine of
$5000 for each conviction. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's ruling
on his challenge for cause. Because all issues of law are settled, our opinion only advises the parties of the court's
decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We affirm.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his second issue, defendant asserts the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction for
aggravated kidnaping. In his third issue, defendant asserts the evidence is factually insufficient to support his
conviction for aggravated sexual assault.
Defendant contends there is no evidence he intentionally or knowingly abducted the complainant, Vanessa Garcia, with
the intent to inflict bodily injury on her or violate or abuse her sexually or terrorize her. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
20.04(a) (Vernon 2003). He also contends the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he caused the
penetration of Garcia's sexual organ without her consent, by acts or words that placed her in fear that death or serious
bodily injury would be imminently inflicted. See id. 22.021(a).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17681.html[8/20/2013 7:44:54 PM]

The evidence establishes that, at about 5:00 a.m. one morning, Garcia was standing by the side of a road waiting for
her boyfriend, Anthony Neaves, when defendant and another male stopped their car and forced her into the backseat.
Garcia testified she screamed and yelled, and continued to fight after she was pushed into the car. Defendant hit her in
the eye. Garcia attempted to get out of the car, but was unable to do so because, she thought, the car had child safety
locks. Garcia said she repeatedly told the men to leave her alone and she just wanted to go home. Garcia thought the
men would kill her because they yelled at her and told her to shut up.
The men eventually stopped the car in a dark area near a pond, and told Garcia to get out of the car. Garcia said
defendant forced her to have vaginal intercourse with him, and the other man forced her to perform oral sex on him.
She said she struggled with defendant, and he bit her. She said that during the rape, she cried and begged defendant to
stop. Eventually, the two men took Garcia to within a few blocks of her home, which she shares with her parents. The
men told Garcia they would kill her if she told anyone what happened.
When she saw Neaves, at about 7:30 a.m. that morning, she initially told him a woman had given her a ride home.
Because her room was still dark, Neaves did not see any bruises. He spoke briefly with Garcia and then left. Several
hours later, Neaves went back to Garcia's home, and he saw her black eye. Garcia said she finally told Neaves what
happened because her eye had started to "show." Because Garcia could not admit to her parents what had happened,
Neaves told her father, who in turn, told her mother.
We conclude this evidence is sufficient to support defendant's convictions.
CHALLENGE OF JUROR FOR CAUSE
In his first issue, defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause of venireperson number 28.
To preserve error on a denied challenge for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that: (1) he asserted a
clear and specific challenge for cause; (2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; (3) all
his peremptory challenges were exhausted; (4) his request for additional strikes was denied; and (5) an objectionable
juror sat on the jury. Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Although defendant challenged the
prospective juror for cause, the record reflects defendant failed to establish that he used a peremptory challenge on the
complained-of venireperson and that all his peremptory challenges were exhausted. The defendant did not ask for
additional strikes. Therefore, defendant's issue is not preserved for our review.
CONCLUSION
We overrule defendant's issues on appeal, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/17681.html[8/20/2013 7:44:54 PM]

Download 17681.pdf