Gabriel Sanchez v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00370-CR

GABRIEL SANCHEZ,
Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-02104-CRF-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant, Gabriel Anthony Sanchez, guilty of the First-Degree

Felony offense of injury to a child causing serious bodily injury. The jury found

Sanchez used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense and

assessed its punishment at forty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. This

appeal ensued. We affirm.
BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2020, Jessica Rodriguez received a call at work from her boyfriend,

the appellant, Gabriel Sanchez. Sanchez informed her that their 37-day-old newborn,

A.S., had fallen off the bed. Rodriguez left work and took A.S. to St. Joseph’s Hospital.

Dr. Michael McDonald treated A.S. at St. Joseph’s and initially observed the

following injuries to A.S.: bruising on the face, around the eyes, on top of the head, on

the lower back, on the buttocks, and on the genitalia. Dr. McDonald also observed

bleeding from A.S.’s nostrils. Dr. McDonald had concerns of child abuse, so he

contacted law enforcement. Additionally, Dr. McDonald ordered CT scans which

indicated two skull fractures and brain bleeding. Dr. McDonald also noticed a hand-

shaped bruise beginning to form on A.S.’s side. Dr. McDonald determined that A.S.

would be life flighted to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) in Houston because the

facility was better equipped to handle the critical nature of A.S.’s injuries.

Before A.S. was life flighted to TCH, Detective Brandon Suehs was called to St.

Joseph’s to begin an investigation. After observing A.S.’s injuries, questioning

Rodriguez, and interviewing hospital staff, Detective Suehs went to Rodriguez’s

apartment to contact Sanchez. Detective Suehs found Sanchez in a field near the

apartment. Sanchez eventually admitted to striking A.S. on her side, buttocks, and face,

Sanchez v. State Page 2
as well as demonstrated that he threw the child onto the bed with enough force that she

bounced and hit her head on the nightstand. Detective Suehs then arrested Sanchez.

Dr. Sarpong treated A.S. at TCH. He concluded that A.S.’s injuries were

intentionally inflicted. A.S. was released from TCH five days later.

Sanchez was charged with injury to a child with the intent to cause serious

bodily injury.

AUTHORITY

Sanchez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Criminal

Appeals has defined our standard of review of a sufficiency issue as follows:

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Villa v.
State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires
the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly
to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S.
at 319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in
a “divide and conquer” strategy but must consider the cumulative force of
all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. Although juries may not
speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted to
draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is
supported by the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750,
757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v.
State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the
factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of
the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d
516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the
Sanchez v. State Page 3
exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the
weight to be given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are
equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to
uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the
incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.
Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214
S.W.3d at 13.
We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as
defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v.
State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically
correct jury charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized
by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of
proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and
adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was
tried.” Id.; see also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013). The “law as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory
elements of the offense and those elements as modified by the indictment.
Daugherty, 387 S.W.3d at 665.

Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

A person commits the offense of injury to a child if, by act or omission, he

intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, causes a child:

(1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or

(3) bodily injury. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(1). “Serious bodily injury” means

bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious

permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily

member or organ. Id. § 1.07(a)(46). “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness or any

impairment of physical condition. Id. § 1.07(a)(8).

Sanchez v. State Page 4
A person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result

of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or

cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a). A person acts knowingly, with respect to a result of his

conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

Id. § 6.03(b). Injury to a child is a result-of-conduct offense, meaning the gravamen of

the offense does not rest on the conduct itself. Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). Rather, the offense focuses on the resulting injury the conduct

caused. Id.

DISCUSSION

In his sole issue, Sanchez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Sanchez

bases his sufficiency challenge on two issues: 1) whether his conduct resulted in serious

bodily injury and 2) if his conduct was intentional or knowing with respect to A.S.’s

brain injury.

Sanchez first argues that the State failed to show sufficient evidence to establish

serious bodily injury. Sanchez explains the State failed to show that A.S.’s injuries

created “a substantial risk of death” or caused “death, serious permanent

disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member

or organ.” Sanchez relies on the fact that A.S. was walking, talking, and learning

numbers at the time of trial. Sanchez also relies on testimony from Dr. Sarpong that

A.S. was at a neurological baseline a month after being released from the hospital.

Sanchez v. State Page 5
However, Dr. McDonald testified that at the time of A.S.’s injuries, the child presented a

substantial risk of death. Dr. McDonald’s belief in A.S.’s critical condition was

significant enough that he relied on a life flight to get the child to a better equipped

facility. Additionally, Dr. Sarpong testified that without treatment, A.S. would have

died.

Dr. McDonald testified regarding the nature of A.S.’s injuries when the child

arrived at St. Joseph’s Hospital. Dr. McDonald primarily focused on A.S.’s two skull

fractures and brain bleeding. See Fancher v. State, 659 S.W.2d 836, 837-38 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1983) (resulting skull fracture and laceration above the eye after an 8-year was

struck in the head with a rock constituted sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury);

See also Saunders v. State, 913 S.W.2d 564, 568-69, 574 (child’s skull fractures serious

bodily injury via their substantial risk of death while determining whether the jury had

been properly instructed regarding involuntary manslaughter). Dr. McDonald also

administered Keppra, an anti-seizure medicine, as a prophylactic due to concern that

A.S.’s brain bleeding would lead to a fatal seizure. Additionally, Dr. McDonald ordered

A.S.’s life flight to Texas Children’s Hospital. Dr. McDonald explained the two reasons

to use life flight are 1) when time is a factor or 2) when someone has potentially critical

injuries that may require critical interventions or complicated care. He concluded both

reasons justified A.S.’s life flight. Dr. McDonald believed A.S. had a substantial risk of

death in her initial condition.

Sanchez v. State Page 6
Dr. Sarpong, the treating doctor at Texas Children’s Hospital, also testified. He

also observed a skull fracture on A.S.’s parietal bone and brain bleeding, as well as a

contusion on A.S.’s brain. Dr. Sarpong explained that a skull fracture takes roughly

eight weeks to six months to fully heal. Dr. Sarpong also testified that twenty-five

percent of babies with A.S.’s head injuries die, and fifty percent develop lifelong

complications. Additionally, Dr. Sarpong testified that if A.S. had not been treated, she

would have died. See Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 715 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (in

making the determination whether an injury caused a substantial risk of death, courts

should look to the degree of injury as it was inflicted, not after the effects have been

ameliorated or exacerbated by medical treatment). Finally, Dr. Sarpong stated that

A.S.’s initial stay lasted five days because CPS told Texas Children’s Hospital not to let

A.S. go yet. Sanchez points out that without the instruction, A.S. would have most

likely been discharged after four days. See id.

Sanchez next argues that the State failed to show sufficient evidence to establish

the required mental states of intentional or knowing. Sanchez points out that since

injury to a child is a result of the conduct offense, the State must prove the defendant’s

culpable mental state as to the result of his conduct. A person acts intentionally with

respect to the result of his conduct when it is her conscious objective or desire to cause

the result. A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of his conduct when he is

aware that her conduct is reasonably likely to cause a result. However, the result

Sanchez v. State Page 7
regarding both intentional and knowing acts does not require the State to prove the

actor intended or foresaw the specific injury. See Haggins v. State, 785 S.W.2d 827, 828

(Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (injury to a child requires the defendant has a required state of

mind which contemplates serious bodily injury, not the specific injury).

Detective Suehs testified that he found Sanchez in a field near the Appellant’s

apartment while A.S. was in the hospital. Detective Suehs testified that Sanchez

admitted to intentionally striking A.S. with his hand and throwing her with enough

force against the bed that she bounced, struck the nightstand, and hit the floor.

Additionally, Sanchez admitted to striking A.S. various times which accounted for the

hand-shaped bruise on A.S.’s side, the bruising on her lower back, and the bruising on

her face. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (intent can be

inferred from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused).

Dr. Sarpong testified that it is harder to fracture a baby’s skull than an adult’s.

More force is required to fracture a baby’s skull. Additionally, Dr. Sarpong stated that

the bruising indicated intentional injury because of its various locations, which included

A.S.’s face, back, buttocks, thighs, and labia. The bruising also primarily occurred on

soft tissue, which made it an unlikely result of accidently bumping into objects. See Hart

v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (intent or knowledge can be inferred

from evidence, including the method of committing the crime, and the nature of the

wounds). Dr. Sarpong testified that A.S.’s brain bleeding was consistent with violent

Sanchez v. State Page 8
shaking. Dr. Sarpong also stated that the brain bleeding was unlikely the result of birth

trauma since hemosiderin, an indicator of bleeding related to birth, was not present.

Sergeant Zane Peterson, the custodian of records at Brazos County Jail, testified

that Sanchez called Rodriguez from the booking office. The call was recorded and

presented to the jury. During the call, Rodriguez stated “Anthony, you… you did this.”

To which Sanchez responded, “I know Jessica. That’s why I’m scared. I’m a monster.”

Considering all of the foregoing evidence viewed in the light most favorable to

the verdict, we conclude that the jury could have rationally found beyond a reasonable

doubt that Sanchez intentionally or knowingly caused A.S. serious bodily injury.

Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have determined that Sanchez

intentionally or knowingly caused A.S. serious bodily injury. Accordingly, we overrule

Sanchez’s sole issue.

Conclusion

Having overruled Sanchez’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

Sanchez v. State Page 9
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith and
Justice Davis 1
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 23, 2025
Do not publish
[CR25]

1
The Honorable Rex Davis, Senior Justice (Retired) of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the
Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
Sanchez v. State Page 10