JESUS SANDOVAL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Francis

Jesus Sandoval appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child younger than fourteen years of age.   Before trial, appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment contending section 21.02 of the penal code was unconstitutional because it violates his right to a unanimous jury verdict under the Texas and United States Constitutions and, therefore, violates his rights to due process.   After the trial court denied the motion, appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State and signed a judicial confession.   Based on his plea, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison.   In a single issue, appellant claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to quash the indictment.   We affirm.

In his sole issue, appellant contends section 21.02 of the penal code is unconstitutional because it allows a jury to convict a defendant without being unanimous as to the underlying predicate offenses which compose the umbrella offense of continuous sexual abuse.   Contrary to appellant's contentions, this Court has previously considered the constitutionality of the statute in question and concluded that section 21.02 of the penal code does not violate the unanimity requirement.  Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 846, 857 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2010, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1533 (2011).   We have also considered the Supreme Court's analysis in Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999), cited by appellant in his brief, and conclude it does not support the argument appellant raises.   See Render, 316 S.W.3d at 857–58.   Appellant presents no new analysis or persuasive argument to convince us to change our conclusion in Render.   We overrule appellant's sole issue.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE