Fernando Juarez v. State ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00213-CR
FERNANDO JUAREZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 34946-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Fernando Juarez was convicted of the offense of capital murder and sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2) (West
2011). On original submission, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See
Juarez v. State, No. 10-11-00213-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9293 (Tex. App.—Waco July
25, 2013). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed this Court's decision regarding
preservation of Juarez's complaint relating to his mandatory sentence of life without
parole. See Juarez v. State, PD-1049-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 666 (Tex.
Crim. App. July 23, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the complaint did
not have to be preserved at the trial court and remanded the proceeding to this Court
for reconsideration in light of the decision in Lewis v. State and Nolley v. State, 428
S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Id.
In reversing this proceeding, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained its
holding in Lewis and Nolley:
The juvenile offenders in those cases were both sentenced to mandatory
life without the possibility of parole. The courts of appeals in both cases
affirmed the convictions but reformed the sentences to life imprisonment
under Miller. We granted review in both cases to decide whether, under
Miller, a juvenile offender is entitled to an individualized sentencing
proceeding when faced with a sentence of life with the possibility of
parole. The Court consolidated the cases and issued one opinion holding
that Miller is limited to a prohibition on mandatory life without parole for
juvenile offenders; thus, juvenile offenders sentenced to life with the
possibility of parole are not entitled to individualized sentencing under
the Eighth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgments of the courts
of appeals.
Juarez, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 666 at *3 (discussing Miller v. Alabama, 567
U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)).
Juarez complains that his sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole is unconstitutional. Both the State and Juarez concede in their letter
briefs on remand that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Lewis and Nolley
mandate that this Court reform the sentence in Juarez's judgment to life with the
possibility of parole. Pursuant to the holding of the Court of Criminal appeals in Lewis
and Nolley, Juarez's sentence of life without parole is hereby reformed to a sentence of
Juarez v. State Page 2
life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. As reformed, the
trial court's judgment is affirmed.1
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Reformed; Affirmed as Reformed
Opinion delivered and filed October 9, 2014
Do Not Publish
[CRPM]
1The scope of this opinion is limited to the issue remanded from the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because
we resolved Juarez's other issues in our prior opinion, we will not address them here. See Juarez v. State,
No. 10-11-00213-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9293 (Tex. App.—Waco July 25, 2013).
Juarez v. State Page 3