TexasCHLforum.com

UPDATE: conviction changed to manslaughter following plea bargain to correct sentencing guidelines mistake by judge

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man ... 96649.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After learning of the mistake Wednesday, state District Judge Julie Kocurek threw out the jury's verdict and, with lawyers in the case, came up with a solution — Romero pleaded guilty to manslaughter under a plea bargain that calls for an eight-year probation sentence. That's the same sentence the jury gave Romero last week. A conviction and eight-year probation sentence for tampering with evidence will stand, and the terms will run together.

HankB wrote:I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him

you're probably right. i guess jury nullification goes both ways. this time it seems possible that the jury convicted him of a crime he didn't commit. (again, not saying the guy is innocent as a newborn baby - he certainly tampered with evidence etc. but MURDER seems an awfully long stretch to me).

@baldeagle - really agree with every single word of your post

Murder conviction, 8 years' probation for store clerk who killed beer thief
Jurors had deliberated for 13 hours in guilt/innocence phase.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/mur ... 86762.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really don't understand this conviction combined with this sentence. How can you be guilty of murder, but receive no jail time? It was obviously a very split jury, and I guess they thought this was some sort of compromise or something. But for those who don't think he murdered anyone, this verdict does put that stain on his record (guess he won't be owning another gun ever again). And for those who think he truly was guilty of murder, no prison time is a travesty.

I thought this was an obvious case of justified deadly force (though only by a very thin string clinging to a narrow reading of penal code) but that he would have the book thrown at him for the tampering with evidence stuff. I thought he'd do a year or more in prison for the tampering with no conviction at all for the killing.

Oldgringo wrote:If nothing else, this thread clearly demonstrates that shooting people, for whatever reason/s, is not a cut and dried and/or clearly defined "guilty or not guilty" situation. I bet it ain't cheap either.

EXACTLY! Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/pro ... 81843.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, Thursday's story clears up the video issue - he told police he deleted it, but they found it on the hard drive.

Romero faces up to life in prison on the murder charge. He is also charged with tampering with evidence, which carries a maximum 10-year sentence. That charge accuses him of concealing shell casings and surveillance video. Because he has never been convicted of a felony, Romero could receive probation if convicted.

Romero told police he deleted surveillance video taken during the shooting, but police recovered it from a store computer, and it was played for the jury Wednesday.

Jury deliberated for a few hours Wednesday, will continue tomorrow. Prosecutors plaed up the angry vigilante angle in closing arguments.

zero4o3 wrote: I would just like to point out, that bradnishing a firearm as a threat, IS deadly force, is it not?

The word brandishing does not appear in Texas Penal Code (far as I know, haven't read every last word of the whole code yet).

TPC 9.02 covers "production of a weapon" without intent to fire it

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

However, discharging a weapon without a legal defense on TPC chapter 9 can lead to municipal violations.

And, while this guy was not a CHL, for all us who are licensed there is the additional and highly confusing and controversial burden of TPC 46.035 (a) which makes intentional unconceal a crime (this is what is often termed "brandishing") adn (h) which ONLY makes an exception to (a) if you are authorized under to law to use deadly force, not merely to use force as explained in 9.04. These two statutes are obviously in conflict, as least as far as CHL holders are concerned, and this issue has been addressed previously in lengthy threads here on the forum as relates to a CHL holder who was convicted of violating 46.035 (a) .... but all the details escape me at the moment.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

one of the posts on the Statesman's web site (can't even remember if it was today's story or yesterday now) made an interesting point:

If the shooter picked up the brass, threw away the beer, erased the tapes, and didn't call the cops ... is there any proof that the deceased stole anything at all other than the shooter's word? Seems this could be why the DA felt compelled to pursue these charges. I believe the accomplice in the get away car has told police (though I don't think he's testified yet) that he and his buddy were out to make a "beer run" which apparently has the slang meaning of shoplifting beer.

Here's story from today's paper, paints him even more as a vigilante in the eyes of many I'm sure.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/def ... 79576.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think he's certainly guilty and will be punished for non-shooting aspects - tampering with evidence, etc. Whether he's guilty of something more for actually taking the shots will likely depend on a technical aspects of justification under Penal Code and the leanings of the jury.

Also, for what it's worth (not much in my opinion) the Statesman's reporter is blogging live from the courtroom today

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... stin_legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:After shooting the thief, the store clerk swept up
his shell casings and threw them and the broken beer
bottles into the trash.

His defense attorney probably echoes what Sammy Davis, Jr. used to say......"Ouch, babe!"

The clerk may have studied Texas statutes but he may not have studied hard enough.

SIA

He also apparently erased security camera video too .... so yeah, this guy has stink all over him. But as RPB alluded to above, many of the comments on the newspaper's web site are saying he should be convicted of murder because "it wasn't his store/his beer" or "he shot the guy in the back" ... plenty of people in this state don't understand deadly force laws at all.

*NOTE: link to story of conviction is on page two of thread*

This will be an interesting trial for us CHL holders to follow. This man wasn't carrying under a CHL, but did apparently "study" laws on deadly force to protect property and that is being used against him by prosecutors

Of course, he also apparently tampered with evidence and made A LOT of other mistakes.

I'll try to update this whenever the paper does.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/tri ... 77079.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the months before South Austin convenience store clerk Juan Romero fatally shot a man who police say was stealing a 12-pack of Budweiser in 2009, Romero bought a pistol and researched Texas law regarding the use of deadly force to protect property, according to a court filing.

He also used the gun, a 9 mm, to deter previous would-be thieves, including by firing warning shots, said the document, filed by prosecutors to give the defense notice they might use the information at Romero's trial.

Today , a 12-member Travis County jury will begin hearing evidence on whether Romero is guilty of murder or whether the fatal shooting of 22-year-old Jorge Luis Vielma in August 2009 was justified under Texas law.