Humberto Escamilla v. the State of Texas

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed July 30, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00687-CR
No. 05-23-00688-CR

HUMBERTO ESCAMILLA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-00530, F20-12072

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy
Opinion by Justice Nowell
A grand jury indicted appellant Humberto Escamilla for a second-degree

felony of indecency with a child by sexual contact and for a first-degree felony of

continuous sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. §§ 21.02(h), 21.11(a), (d). The State subsequently filed a motion to reduce the

continuous sexual assault of a child charge to a charge of indecency with a child by

sexual contact. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charges. After a punishment hearing

before the court, the court sentenced appellant to five years’ confinement in each

case to run concurrently.
In a single issue, appellant challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction to render

judgment because the case was not transferred to its docket. The State raises several

cross-issues requesting modification of the judgments. As modified, we affirm the

trial court’s judgments. Appellant has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence

to support the judgment; therefore, we include only those facts necessary for

disposition of the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Because the issues are well-settled,

we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

Jurisdiction

Appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his cases because

the district court that empaneled the grand jury did not enter an order of transfer.

“When a defendant fails to file a plea to the jurisdiction, he waives any right to

complain that a transfer order does not appear in the record.” Bullock v. State, 673

S.W.3d 758, 768 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023, no pet.) (quoting Keller v. State, 604

S.W.3d 214, 231 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d)). We have rejected this issue

in over seventy-five prior opinions in which this counsel represented an appellant,

and we do so once again today. Id. at 769 n.3 (collecting cases). Because appellant

did not file a plea to the jurisdiction, his issue is waived. Id. at 769. We overrule

appellant’s sole issue.

Judgment Modifications

We have the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to

make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to

–2–
do so. McDade v. State, 613 S.W.3d 349, 358 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.);

see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). Should a judgment and sentence improperly reflect

the findings of the trial court, “the proper remedy is the reformation of the

judgment.” Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.

ref’d) (en banc). The State raises five cross-issues requesting modifications of the

judgments. We address each in turn.

A. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.017 Special Finding

In its first cross-issue, the State asks that we delete a Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure article 42.017 special finding. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

42.017 (requiring affirmative finding in judgment for certain age-based offenses

under sections 21.11 or 22.011 of the penal code when defendant was not more than

four years older than the intended victim and the intended victim was at least fifteen

years old). The judgments include the following special finding concerning the ages

of appellant and the victims:

The Court FINDS that at the time of the offense, Defendant was
younger than nineteen (19) years of age and the victim was at least
thirteen (13) years of age. The Court FURTHER FINDS that the
conviction is based solely on the ages of Defendant and the victim or
intended victim at the time of the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.,
art. 42.017.

Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact, which

falls under article 47.017. However, the record reflects appellant was sixty-nine

years old and the victims were in elementary school when appellant committed the

charged offenses. Thus, appellant was not a young offender within four years of the
–3–
victims’ ages requiring the special finding. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the State’s

first cross-issue and delete the article 42.017 special finding from both judgments.

See Sirls v. State, 579 S.W.3d 651, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no

pet.) (deleting article 47.017 finding from judgment that did not meet statutory age

requirements).

B. Affirmative Finding Regarding Age of Victims

In its second cross-issue, the State requests modification of the judgments to

include the ages of the victims. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.015(b)

requires:

In the trial of a sexually violent offense, as defined in Article 62.001,
the judge shall make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the
affirmative finding in the judgment in the case if the judge determines
that the victim or intended victim was younger than fourteen years of
age at the time of the offense.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.015(b). A “sexually violent offense” includes

indecency with a child. Id. article 62.001(6)(A).

Appellant pleaded guilty to both indictments of indecency with a child. One

indictment alleged appellant inappropriately touched C.M. on or about September 1,

2015. At the time of the punishment hearing on July 6, 2023, C.M. was seventeen.

Thus, when the abuse occurred, C.M. was around nine years old.1

C.S. was thirteen at the time of the punishment hearing; therefore, she was

also a victim younger than fourteen years of age at the time of the offense.

1
The record does not reflect C.M.’s date of birth.
–4–
We conclude the judgments should be modified to reflect a finding that the

victims were “younger than fourteen years of age at the time of the offense.” TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.015(b); Timmons v. State, No. 05-19-00126-CR,

2020 WL 2110708, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 4, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication). The State’s second cross-issue is sustained.

C. Age of Victims for Sex-Offender Registration Requirements

The judgments correctly reflect that appellant is required to register as a sex-

offender; however it states, “N/A” for “age of the victim at the time of the offense.”

The State requests we modify the judgments to include the ages of C.M. and C.S.

As stated above, C.M. was around nine years old at the time of the offense.

C.S. testified she was “maybe 8, 9” when appellant touched her. C.S. was born June

11, 2010. The indictment alleged the offense occurred on or about March 1, 2020.

Accordingly, C.S. was nine years old at the time of the offense. We sustain the

State’s third cross-issue and modify the sex-offender registration section of the

judgments to state, “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 9 years old.”

See Floressanchez v. State, No. 05-22-01073-CR, 2023 WL 6457326, at *5 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

D. Affirmative Finding of Family Violence

In its fourth cross-issue, the State requests modification of the judgment in

trial court cause number F20-12072 (appellate cause number 05-23-00688-CR) to

reflect an affirmative family violence finding.

–5–
Article 42.013 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a trial court

determines an offense under Title 5 of the penal code involved family violence, as

defined by section 71.004 of the family code, the court shall make an affirmative

finding of that fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case. TEX

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.013; Butler v. State, 189 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006). Section 71.004(1) of the family code provides, in part, that

“[f]amily violence” means “an act by a member of a family or household against

another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical

harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault[.]” Id. § 71.004(1). “Family” includes

“individuals related by consanguinity or affinity, as determined by Sections 573.022

and 573.024.” Id. § 71.003. “Household” means “a unit composed of persons living

together in the same dwelling, without regard to whether they are related to each

other.” Id. § 71.005.

If the State charges an accused with a crime within the scope of section 71.004

and the evidence supports a verdict that the crime was committed, the statute requires

the trial court to enter the finding. Id. The court has no discretion in the matter.

Floressanchez, 2023 WL 6457326, at *5.

The State argues the trial court had the necessary evidence before it to enter

an affirmative finding of family violence in trial court cause number F20-12072

(appellate cause number: 05-23-00688-CR). We agree.

–6–
Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child, which is an offense under

Title 5 of the penal code. C.M. testified appellant was her “grandpa,” and the abuse

occurred while she lived with him. The record further indicates C.M.’s mother was

appellant’s daughter, therefore, confirming appellant was C.M.’s grandfather.

Grandchildren are family for purposes of section 71.003, as the government code

provides that two individuals are related to each other by consanguinity if one is a

descendant of the other. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 573.022(a)(1).

We conclude the trial court was statutorily obligated to include an affirmative

family violence finding in the judgment because appellant committed an act of

family violence against a member of his family. Moreover, because C.M. testified

appellant abused her while she lived with him, he also committed an act of family

violence against a member of the household. Accordingly, we modify the judgment

in trial court cause number F20-12072 (appellate cause number 05-23-00688-CR) to

include an affirmative finding of family violence. We sustain the State’s fourth

cross-issue.

E. Assessment of Costs

In its final cross-issue, the State requests modification of the assessment of

costs in cause number F21-00530 (appellate cause number 05-23-00687-CR). Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure article 102.073 provides that when a defendant is

convicted of two or more offenses or of multiple counts of the same offense in a

single criminal action, and the convictions are the same category of offense and the

–7–
costs are all the same, the court costs should be based on the lowest cause number.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a), (b); see Johnson v. State, No. 05-19-

00641-CR, 2020 WL 4745552, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 17, 2020, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

Here, appellant was convicted of two separate second-degree indecency with

a child by contact offenses in a single criminal transaction. However, the trial court

assessed $290.00 in costs against appellant in both judgments rather than in F20-

12072, the lower of the two cause numbers. Accordingly, we sustain the State’s fifth

cross-issue and modify the judgment in trial court cause number F21-00530

(appellate cause number 05-23-00687) to remove the duplicative court costs.

Johnson, 2020 WL 4745552, at *6.

Conclusion

Having overruled appellant’s sole issue and sustained the State’s cross-issues,

as modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
230687F.U05

–8–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

HUMBERTO ESCAMILLA, On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F21-00530.
No. 05-23-00687-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Molberg and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

We REMOVE $290.00 in Court Costs.

We REMOVE “N/A” and REPLACE with “9 years old” for “The age
of the victim at the time of the offense.”

We ADD the “Following special findings or orders apply”: “The Court
FINDS the victim was younger than 14 years of age at the time of the
offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.015(b).”

We DELETE the “Following special findings or orders apply”: “The
Court FINDS that at the time of the offense, Defendant was younger
than nineteen (19) years of age and the victim was at least thirteen (13)
years of age. The Court FURTHER FINDS that the conviction is based
solely on the ages of Defendant and the victim or intended victim at the
time of the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.017.”

–9–
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 30, 2024

–10–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

HUMBERTO ESCAMILLA, On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F20-12072.
No. 05-23-00688-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Molberg and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

We REMOVE “N/A” and REPLACE with “9 years old” for “The age
of the victim at the time of the offense.”

We ADD the “Following special findings or orders apply”: “The Court
FINDS the victim was younger than 14 years of age at the time of the
offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.015(b).”

We ADD the “Following special findings or orders apply”: “The Court
enters an affirmative finding that Defendant’s offense involved family
violence, as defined by section 71.004 of the Texas Family Code.”

We DELETE the “Following special findings or orders”: “The Court
FINDS that at the time of the offense, Defendant was younger than
nineteen (19) years of age and the victim was at least thirteen (13) years
of age. The Court FURTHER FINDS that the conviction is based solely
on the ages of Defendant and the victim or intended victim at the time
of the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.017.”

–11–
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 30, 2024

–12–