Christian Alexander Moreno v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 06-24-00177-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00177-CR

CHRISTIAN ALEXANDER MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 226th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. DC2023CR7154A

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Christian Alexander Moreno’s dogs attacked Ramon Najera and caused his death,

Moreno entered a plea of guilty to attack by dog, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.005(a)(1), (b). After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced

Moreno to eighteen years’ imprisonment and imposed a $5,000.00 fine. In his sole point of error

on appeal, Moreno argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motions to quash the

indictment.1 While we find no error in the trial court’s decision, we must modify the judgment

to reflect the correct statute of offense. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Moreno argues that the State’s indictment should have been dismissed. Under the

applicable statute,

(a) A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dog and the person:

(1) with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code, fails to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that occurs at a location other than the owner’s real property or in or on the owner’s motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, or death to the other person . . . .

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.005(a)(1). An unprovoked attack that causes death is

a second-degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.005(b). Consistent with the

statutory language of Section 822.005, the State’s indictment alleged that Moreno

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals in deciding the issues presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 did with criminal negligence fail to secure a dog that was owned by the defendant, namely by failing to appropriately restrain his dogs, maintaining a fence of inadequate height, and maintaining a fence with numerous holes and areas through which his dogs could enter and exit the fence, and the dogs made an unprovoked attack on another person that caused the death of Ramon Najera, at a location other than defendant’s real property or in or on the defendant’s motor vehicle or boat.

On February 2, 2024, Moreno filed motions to dismiss the indictment on grounds of

“Outrageous Governmental Conduct” and “Entrapment by Estoppel.” In the dismissal motions,

Moreno classified his dogs as dangerous because they were previously involved in two other

attacks that resulted in bite wounds to people. He argued in his motions that the San Antonio

Animal Control (SAAC) was to blame for the attack because it released the dogs to Moreno

despite the prior attacks. According to Moreno’s motions, SAAC should have imposed more

stringent requirements on Moreno before releasing the dogs to him or should have euthanized the

dogs.

After the hearings, the trial court denied Moreno’s motions to dismiss the indictment, and

he pled guilty to the offense.

II. There Was No Error in the Trial Court’s Denial of Moreno’s Dismissal Motions

On appeal, Moreno argues that the trial court should have quashed the State’s indictment

because, had SAAC euthanized the dogs, the attack would never have happened. In effect, in his

arguments, Moreno questions whether he was criminally negligent. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 6.04. The State asserts that Moreno’s arguments do not provide a reason to quash the

indictment. We agree.

3 “We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to quash an indictment de novo because

the sufficiency of a charging instrument is a question of law.” Estrada v. State, 629 S.W.3d 755,

758 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.) (citing State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550, 555 n.6

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). “An indictment is sufficient so long as (1) it confers jurisdiction on the

trial court to pronounce judgment and (2) an ordinary person can understand what it means and

what the offense is.” Id. (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 21.11). “An indictment must

be specific enough for the defendant to prepare a defense, and the sufficiency of the indictment

will be tested on its own terms—‘in a vacuum, so to speak.’” Id. (quoting Adams v. State, 707

S.W.2d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)).

Moreno does not argue that the State’s indictment failed to confer jurisdiction on the

district court, allege a crime, or track the statutory language. Here, we find that the State’s

indictment sufficiently alleged a felony offense, which conferred jurisdiction on the district court

to decide the matter. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.05. We also find that the

indictment provided sufficient notice that the State was seeking to try Moreno under Section

822.005 because it tracked that section’s statutory language. See Meza v. State, 549 S.W.3d 672,

680 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly

overruled Moreno’s motions to dismiss the indictment.

We overrule Moreno’s sole point of error.

III. We Modify the Judgment to Reflect the Correct Statute of Offense

“This Court has the power to correct and modify the judgment of the trial court for

accuracy when the necessary data and information are part of the record.” Anthony v. State, 531

4 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc)). “The authority of an appellate court to reform

incorrect judgments is not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the

question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” Id. (quoting Asberry, 813

S.W.2d at 529–30).

Here, the record shows that the indictment tracked the statutory language of Section

822.005 and that Moreno pled guilty to an offense under that section. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.005. Even so, the trial court’s judgment mistakenly lists the statute of

offense as Section 822.044 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which requires a dangerous dog

allegation that was omitted from the State’s allegations. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§ 822.044. As a result, we modify the trial court’s judgment to clarify the correct statute of

offense.

IV. Conclusion

We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the statute of offense is Section

822.005 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 1, 2025 Date Decided: April 10, 2025

Do Not Publish 5