Opinion issued June 18, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00280-CR ——————————— LOUIS STREDIC, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1376587
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louis Stredic was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery by threat
with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). A
jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of robbery by threat. Pursuant to
a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed punishment at incarceration for 50 years.
In his sole issue on appeal, Stredic contends that the trial court erred in submitting
the lesser included offense.
We affirm.
Background
On February 5, 2013, Lesley Thomas returned to Houston from Dallas. She
had parked her car in a parking lot during her trip and returned to her car shortly
before midnight. She began wiping condensation off the window when she noticed
a man, later identified as Stredic, approaching her. She believed the man was a
security guard because he was wearing long blue pants and a blue buttoned-down
shirt. Thomas observed Stredic “reaching into his pocket” while he walked toward
her, but Thomas believed he was reaching for a cigarette.
Thomas testified at trial that Stredic came behind her and placed a gun in the
lower part of her back. Thomas also testified that Stredic placed his left arm
around Thomas, knocking her glasses off in the process, and told Thomas that if
she did not stop screaming he was going to “blow [her] goddamn brains out.”
Thomas testified that she saw the gun and described it as “large,” “black,” and
“about a 9-millimeter.”
Stredic forced Thomas into the front passenger seat. Stredic then sat in the
driver’s seat of the car and demanded Thomas’s cash, credit cards, and purse.
2 Thomas gave Stredic $140 in cash and her purse and told him she did not have any
credit cards.
He then instructed Thomas to start the car and get out or he would “blow
[her] goddamn brains out.” While Thomas ran to borrow a cell phone to call the
police, Stredic drove away in Thomas’s car. The Houston Police Department
(HPD) responded to the call, and Thomas gave the officers the license plate
number and description of her car, a description of Stredic, and her account of the
robbery.
At approximately 7:00 a.m. that same day, police in Brazoria County
responded to a citizen’s report that a man, later identified as Stredic, was
“knocking on her door trying to gain access to her house.” Two police officers
saw Stredic attempting to drive away, detained him, and discovered that the car he
was driving had been reported stolen. After searching the car and Stredic, the
officers found Thomas’s driver’s license in Stredic’s pocket.
Officer Crank, an investigator in the HPD Robbery Division, prepared a
photographic array containing photographs of Stredic and five other men. Thomas
positively identified Stredic “in a matter of seconds” and was “[e]xtremely
confident” in her identification.
Stredic was charged with aggravated robbery by threat with a deadly
weapon. At the State’s request and over Stredic’s objection, the trial court
3 submitted the lesser included offense of robbery by threat. The jury found Stredic
guilty of the lesser included offense.
Discussion
In his sole issue on appeal, Stredic argues that the trial court improperly
submitted the lesser included offense of robbery.
A. Standard of Review
We review a challenge to the trial court’s jury charge under an abuse of
discretion standard. Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 455 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is outside the
zone of reasonable disagreement. Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 429 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992). Review of a jury charge requires two steps: “first, the court
must determine whether error actually exists in the charge, and second, the court
must determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to require
reversal.” Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)
(citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)); see also
Gibson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
B. Applicable Law
An offense is a lesser included offense if:
(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged;
4 (2) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property, or public interest suffices to establish its commission;
(3) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less culpable mental state suffices to establish its commission; or
(4) it consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or an otherwise included offense.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.09 (West 2006). If an offense meets any one
of these definitions, then it is necessarily a lesser included offense to the offense
charged. Hicks v. State, 372 S.W.3d 649, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Aguilar v.
State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (citing Royster v. State, 622
S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)); see also Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
When a defendant requests submission of a lesser included offense, he must
satisfy a two-step test. Aguilar, 682 S.W.2d at 558; see also Rousseau, 855
S.W.2d at 672. First, the defendant must show that “the lesser included offense
must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged.”
Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672. This is a question of law that does not depend on
evidence to be produced at trial. Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524, 535 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Second, “some evidence must exist in the record that if the defendant
is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.” Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672.
5 However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a different burden
applies when the State requests submission of a lesser included offense. The State
is only required to prove the first step of the test. Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644,
650–51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (overruling Arevelo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997)); Satchell v. State, 321 S.W.3d 127, 136 (Tex. App.—
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion issued June 18, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00280-CR ——————————— LOUIS STREDIC, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1376587
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louis Stredic was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery by threat
with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). A
jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of robbery by threat. Pursuant to
a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed punishment at incarceration for 50 years.
In his sole issue on appeal, Stredic contends that the trial court erred in submitting
the lesser included offense.
We affirm.
Background
On February 5, 2013, Lesley Thomas returned to Houston from Dallas. She
had parked her car in a parking lot during her trip and returned to her car shortly
before midnight. She began wiping condensation off the window when she noticed
a man, later identified as Stredic, approaching her. She believed the man was a
security guard because he was wearing long blue pants and a blue buttoned-down
shirt. Thomas observed Stredic “reaching into his pocket” while he walked toward
her, but Thomas believed he was reaching for a cigarette.
Thomas testified at trial that Stredic came behind her and placed a gun in the
lower part of her back. Thomas also testified that Stredic placed his left arm
around Thomas, knocking her glasses off in the process, and told Thomas that if
she did not stop screaming he was going to “blow [her] goddamn brains out.”
Thomas testified that she saw the gun and described it as “large,” “black,” and
“about a 9-millimeter.”
Stredic forced Thomas into the front passenger seat. Stredic then sat in the
driver’s seat of the car and demanded Thomas’s cash, credit cards, and purse.
2 Thomas gave Stredic $140 in cash and her purse and told him she did not have any
credit cards.
He then instructed Thomas to start the car and get out or he would “blow
[her] goddamn brains out.” While Thomas ran to borrow a cell phone to call the
police, Stredic drove away in Thomas’s car. The Houston Police Department
(HPD) responded to the call, and Thomas gave the officers the license plate
number and description of her car, a description of Stredic, and her account of the
robbery.
At approximately 7:00 a.m. that same day, police in Brazoria County
responded to a citizen’s report that a man, later identified as Stredic, was
“knocking on her door trying to gain access to her house.” Two police officers
saw Stredic attempting to drive away, detained him, and discovered that the car he
was driving had been reported stolen. After searching the car and Stredic, the
officers found Thomas’s driver’s license in Stredic’s pocket.
Officer Crank, an investigator in the HPD Robbery Division, prepared a
photographic array containing photographs of Stredic and five other men. Thomas
positively identified Stredic “in a matter of seconds” and was “[e]xtremely
confident” in her identification.
Stredic was charged with aggravated robbery by threat with a deadly
weapon. At the State’s request and over Stredic’s objection, the trial court
3 submitted the lesser included offense of robbery by threat. The jury found Stredic
guilty of the lesser included offense.
Discussion
In his sole issue on appeal, Stredic argues that the trial court improperly
submitted the lesser included offense of robbery.
A. Standard of Review
We review a challenge to the trial court’s jury charge under an abuse of
discretion standard. Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 455 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is outside the
zone of reasonable disagreement. Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 429 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992). Review of a jury charge requires two steps: “first, the court
must determine whether error actually exists in the charge, and second, the court
must determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to require
reversal.” Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)
(citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)); see also
Gibson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
B. Applicable Law
An offense is a lesser included offense if:
(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged;
4 (2) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property, or public interest suffices to establish its commission;
(3) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less culpable mental state suffices to establish its commission; or
(4) it consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or an otherwise included offense.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.09 (West 2006). If an offense meets any one
of these definitions, then it is necessarily a lesser included offense to the offense
charged. Hicks v. State, 372 S.W.3d 649, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Aguilar v.
State, 682 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (citing Royster v. State, 622
S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)); see also Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
When a defendant requests submission of a lesser included offense, he must
satisfy a two-step test. Aguilar, 682 S.W.2d at 558; see also Rousseau, 855
S.W.2d at 672. First, the defendant must show that “the lesser included offense
must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged.”
Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672. This is a question of law that does not depend on
evidence to be produced at trial. Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524, 535 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Second, “some evidence must exist in the record that if the defendant
is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.” Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672.
5 However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a different burden
applies when the State requests submission of a lesser included offense. The State
is only required to prove the first step of the test. Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644,
650–51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (overruling Arevelo v. State, 943 S.W.2d 887
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997)); Satchell v. State, 321 S.W.3d 127, 136 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (relying on Grey and holding, “to obtain a
lesser-included offense instruction, the State need only show that its requested
instruction describes a lesser-included offense of the charged offense”).
C. Analysis
A person commits robbery
(a) . . . if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011).
A person commits aggravated robbery
(a) . . . if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
6 (3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
Id. § 29.03(a) (West 2011).
The elements of robbery and aggravated robbery, as they relate to this case,
are the same except that aggravated robbery requires an additional finding that the
defendant (1) caused serious bodily injury to another, (2) used or exhibited a
deadly weapon, or (3) caused bodily injury or threatened or placed another person
in fear of imminent bodily injury if the other person is 65 years of age or older or
disabled. Young v. State, 428 S.W.3d 172, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2014, pet. ref’d). Thus, “the offense of robbery is a lesser-included offense of
aggravated robbery because robbery ‘is established by proof of the same or less
than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged.’”
Id.; see also Penaloza v. State, 349 S.W.3d 709, 711 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (“Robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated
robbery.”); Jones v. State, 921 S.W.2d 361, 364 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1996, pet. ref’d) (same).
Because the elements of robbery and aggravated robbery are the same except
that aggravated robbery requires proof of additional facts, robbery is a lesser
7 included offense of aggravated robbery under the first definition in Article 37.09 of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Because robbery is a lesser included
offense of aggravated robbery, the trial court did not err in submitting the lesser
included offense of robbery at the State’s request. Grey, 298 S.W.3d at 650–51.
We overrule Stredic’s sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rebeca Huddle Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).