Jury to decide punishment after Bexar County hearing over juvenile enhancement and fingerprint evidence

At a punishment hearing in the 187th District Court in Bexar County, jurors were instructed to decide whether a repeat‑offender enhancement based on a 2015 juvenile adjudication is true, a finding that would raise the minimum punishment range and remove probation as an option.

The question matters because, if jurors find the enhancement true, the minimum sentence for the aggravated‑assault counts would be 15 years; if jurors find it not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the punishment range would be lower and the jury could recommend community supervision if the selected term is 10 years or less.

Judge Stephanie Boyd told the panel that the indictment included counts for aggravated assault to public servants (counts 1 and 2) and deadly conduct (count 3, paragraph a), and that the state had waived count 3, paragraph b. The defense argued that sentencing on multiple counts would raise double‑jeopardy concerns and sought to strike count 3 entirely; the court overruled that request but granted the state's waiver of paragraph b.

The state offered a juvenile adjudication judgment and a fingerprint comparison to prove the enhancement. Robert Jimenez, a fingerprint supervisor and examiner with the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, testified that he compared a right‑thumbprint taken in court with a print on the juvenile record and concluded, “they are, prints are identical. They're one and the same.” On cross‑examination, defense counsel elicited testimony that the ACE‑V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) methodology — including independent verification by a second analyst — was not completed for the comparison shown in court.

Defense counsel argued to jurors that the lack of an independent verification step created reasonable doubt about whether the juvenile adjudication print matched the defendant’s print. The defense also asked jurors to weigh the fairness of using a juvenile adjudication as an enhancement, noting witnesses who described the defendant’s family ties and work, and arguing the defendant had complied with court‑ordered GPS supervision and had not misused recent liberties.

Witnesses at the punishment phase included Tatiana Martinez de Escobar, who testified about the defendant’s role as a caregiver and urged leniency; Joseph Gonzales and Norma Gonzalez, who described raising the defendant from childhood and discussed a 2015 juvenile burglary adjudication in which the defendant was committed to the Texas Youth Commission; Bianca Zimbardo, supervisor with Bexar County Community Supervision and Corrections, who described probation options including GPS monitoring, inpatient and outpatient substance‑treatment programs, and the limits on probation (the court may impose probation only when the underlying sentence is 10 years or less); and pretrial GPS officer Sean Bohack, who testified the defendant had been compliant on monitoring.

In closing arguments the prosecutor emphasized the juvenile adjudication evidence and asked jurors to find the enhancement true and to impose a sentence consistent with the enhanced ranges. Defense counsel argued the fingerprint evidence was subjective and not verified and urged jurors to find any reasonable doubt and to allow the jury to choose a term that would permit a recommendation for community supervision. The court instructed jurors that a juvenile adjudication is not the same as an adult felony conviction for some procedural purposes but may be considered in determining punishment and in enhancement if proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

After receiving the charge — which explains the legal effect of finding the repeat‑offender allegation true or not true and lists the sentencing ranges for each outcome — the jury was sent to deliberate punishment and the repeat‑offender allegation.

The outcome will determine whether the defendant remains eligible for community supervision (probation) and the minimum prison terms the judge may impose if the jury finds enhancement allegations true.