Talyle Eldante Meaderds v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

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–