Talyle Eldante Meaderds v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-00825-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed April 25, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00825-CR

TALYLE ELDANTE MEADERDS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19-76609-N

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Reichek Following a jury trial, Talyle Eldante Meaderds was convicted of aggravated

sexual assault. Appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment to delete an

affirmative deadly weapon finding. The State agrees the affirmative finding is

improper. For reasons that follow, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete

the deadly weapon finding. As modified, we affirm.

In the original indictment charging appellant with aggravated sexual assault,

the aggravating element alleged was appellant’s use or exhibition of a deadly

weapon, a firearm, in the course of the same criminal episode. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(2)(A)(iv). Before trial, the State amended the indictment to allege

alternate aggravating elements. In addition to the deadly weapon allegation, the

amended indictment alleged appellant, by his acts and words, placed the complainant

in fear that death, serious bodily injury, and kidnapping would be imminently

inflicted on her and alleged that, by acts or words occurring in the complainant’s

presence, appellant threatened to cause death and serious bodily injury to her and

kidnap her. See id. § 22.021(a)(2)(A)(ii) & (iii).

The court’s charge instructed the jury on the alternate aggravating factors.

The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault “as charged in the

indictment” and assessed his punishment at 45 years’ confinement. No special issue

regarding the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon was presented to the jury. The

trial court’s judgment includes an affirmative finding that appellant used or exhibited

a deadly weapon, a firearm, during the commission of the offense.

The term “affirmative finding” means the trier of fact’s express determination

that a deadly weapon or firearm was actually used or exhibited during the

commission of the offense. Duran v. State, 492 S.W.3d 741, 746 (Tex. Crim. App.

2016). Courts do not look to the facts of the case to imply an affirmative deadly

weapon finding; we look to the charging instrument, the jury charge, and the verdict

to evaluate the propriety of an entry of a deadly weapon finding in a judgment. Id.

There are three ways by which a court can determine that the trier of fact actually

made an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon:

–2– (1) the indictment specifically alleged a “deadly weapon” was used and the

defendant was found guilty “as charged in the indictment;”

(2) the indictment did not use the words “deadly weapon” but alleged use of

a deadly weapon per se, such as a firearm; or

(3) the jury made an express finding of fact of use of a deadly weapon in

response to submission of a special issue.

Id. (citing Polk v. State, 693 S.W.2d 391, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

Although the jury found appellant guilty “as charged in the indictment,” the

use or exhibition of a deadly weapon was not the only aggravating factor alleged in

this case. The jury could have found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault if

it found that by his acts and words, he placed the complainant in fear that death,

serious bodily injury, or kidnapping would be imminently inflicted on her or if it

found that by acts or words occurring in the complainant’s presence, appellant

threatened to cause death or serious bodily injury to her or kidnap her. We cannot

imply from the jury’s verdict that it believed the evidence that appellant used or

exhibited a firearm. Because the trial court was not the factfinder, it did not have

authority to find implied facts that the jury did not expressly find. See Lafleur v.

State, 106 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We sustain appellant’s issue.

We modify the trial court’s judgment to delete all references to an affirmative

deadly weapon finding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,

–3– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE

Do Not Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 220825F.U05

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

TALYLE ELDANTE MEADERDS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19-76609-N. No. 05-22-00825-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee and Miskel participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to remove all references to an affirmative deadly weapon finding. As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 25th day of April, 2023.

–5–