The legislative memorandum in support of the <mask> statute is consistent with this view and does not suggest that Federal officers were excluded from its terms. Penal Law § 120.11 was enacted in 1980 as part of a gun control legislation program whose purpose was to increase penalties for unlawful possession and use of firearms. It was prepared in response to the "tragic deaths of those police *373officers who have fallen victim to armed felons” and reflected a deepening concern for their safety. Moreover, the clear trend in law enforcement today is for Federal and State officers to work together on a regular, continuing basis. Joint task forces were created to deal with immediate, pressing concerns, such as the violation of narcotics laws, and for long-range investigations. Officers from both jurisdictions are assigned to each other’s agencies. Cases and allegations of wrongdoing are routinely referred from prosecutors and officers in one jurisdiction to prosecutors and officers in another.


cause[d] bodily injury to Melanie Molien by striking [her] head or body with [his] hands, and [he] did then and there use or exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: water, during the commission of said assault. After trial, the jury convicted Appellant of non-aggravated sexual assault and of <mask> with a deadly weapon while acquitting him of assault/family violence. The jury assessed a seven year sentence for the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction and a ten year sentence, suspended to community supervision, for the sexual assault conviction.


In this case, the State indicted Appellant for <mask> both by causing serious bodily injury and by use a deadly weapon (here by using either a vase, a tissue box, or Appellant's hand). The State later deleted the express reference to a deadly weapon from the indictment. Appellant contends that his trial counsel erred in assuming, and presumably informing Appellant, that the deletion of the deadly weapon language carried some significance to the case. Appellant reasons that under Blount v. State , the mere allegation of a serious bodily injury carries with it an implicit allegation of use of a deadly weapon, so that the deadly weapon allegation never really went away.


In May of 1988, the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health brought a recommitment application pursuant to CPL 330.20 (14). In support of the application, Dr. Maurice Masse stated that S. was not compliant with his treatment. During the pendency of that application, S. continued his substance-induced violent behavior. On June 4, 1988, he was arrested and charged in New Jersey for shoplifting and <mask> on a police officer. On July 27, 1988, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Then, at around midnight on November 2, 1989, S. threatened a bartender and patrons at Canastel’s restaurant, on the corner of 19th Street and Park Avenue South in Manhattan, with a 10-inch-long metal pipe wrapped in leather. Police Officer Daniel Pusateri encountered S. outside of the restaurant after he had been ejected but then tried to get back inside. Officer Pusateri asked S. to leave the area, but he refused and swung his arms around and yelled. As S. was being placed under arrest for disorderly conduct, he bit the officer on the hand. As a result, *9S. was charged with assault, resisting arrest, menacing and criminal possession of a weapon. On November 5, 1989 S. pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.


3 In addition to addressing the merits of Miller’s argument, the State contends the aggravated-assault instruction is a moot issue. It notes that two of the felonious-assault charges (deadly weapon and serious physical harm) related to the stabbing, served as underlying predicates to murder, and merged into murder for purposes of sentencing. The State also points out that Miller does not allege ineffective assistance based on his attorney’s failure to seek an involuntary-manslaughter instruction predicated on the lesser offense of <mask>. As for the third felonious-assault charge, the State notes that it related to the victim being struck by a car, which was a separate incident falling outside of any serious provocation producing sudden passion or a fit of rage. For each of these reasons, the State contends we need not address defense counsel’s failure to seek an aggravated-assault instruction. Because we find Miller’s ineffective-assistance argument unpersuasive on its merits, we express no opinion on the mootness issue.


The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) took a seventy-two-hour hold on the children on June 30, 2016, after learning that appellant had threatened to "shoot the whole place up" while under the influence of drugs and, at one point, pointed a gun at S.S. Although the incident began as a domestic situation between Madison and appellant, Madison did not want a protection order. Therefore, the children were removed due to abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness. An arrest warrant was subsequently issued for appellant for <mask> on a family or household member and terroristic threatening. DHS filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect on July 5, 2016. An ex parte order for emergency custody was filed the same day.


PER CURIAM: Davino Marquan Daniels timely appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to withdraw his pleas and that provisions of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6801 et seq., violate his constitutional rights. Daniels pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of <mask> in 19CR656 and one count of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-4901 et seq., in 19CR796. Prior to sentencing, Daniels moved to withdraw his guilty pleas in both cases. Upon our extensive review of the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion when


On April 12, 2019, the Defendant was arrested and charged with <mask>, theft of property, evading arrest, resisting arrest, and violating an order of protection. The Defendant represented himself during two hearings in general sessions court and filed a pro se motion for a speedy trial, which he later withdrew. The Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and on July 17, 2019, a Bradley County grand jury indicted the Defendant for the offenses. On August 12, 2019, the trial court appointed counsel, and the Defendant pleaded guilty as charged on December 9, 2019.


Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under the first step of the two-part lesser-included-offense analysis, as charged in this case, deadly conduct is a lesser-included offense of <mask>. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC . art 37.09(1) ; Hall , 225 S.W.3d at 536. Because, under the functional-equivalence concept, the elements of deadly conduct are functionally the same or less than those required for the offense of aggravated assault as alleged here, the court of appeals erred by concluding that deadly conduct was not a lesser-included offense as a matter of law. See McKithan , 324 S.W.3d at 588.


And after Ms. Perry through (sic) [the Petitioner’s] drink all over his face and shirt, he overreacted. In a split second he did something careless, something he can never take back. He through (sic) the glass, whose contents had just been thrown all over him. And he is taking responsibility for that. He is acknowledging those actions. But it doesn’t mean that he’s guilty of <mask>.


But this particular variance between the pleading and the proof should not be considered to be material in the sufficiency analysis because it would be patently immaterial under Johnson . 364 S.W.3d at 292. The variance regarding Appellant's use of his hands would be one describing only the manner and means by which the bodily injury was caused. Under Johnson , this would fall into the second category of variance, a "non-statutory allegation that describes the offense in some way." Id. at 295. Such a variance is material only when it converts the offense proven at trial into a different offense than what was pled in the charging instrument, which could potentially subject a defendant to another prosecution for the same offense. Id. There is no such danger here, however, because the fact that Appellant caused Molien to suffer bodily injury with his hands not by striking her with them, but instead by choking her,5 does not make the <mask> that was proved at trial different than the aggravated assault that was pled in the indictment. What was pled and proved was that Appellant committed aggravated assault against Molien by causing her bodily injury and that he used water as a deadly weapon while doing so. The indictment did not specify the precise injury that would be shown by the evidence, and exactly how Appellant used his hands to cause the bodily injury is inconsequential to the legal sufficiency analysis.


Cf. United States v. Hoxworth, 11 F.4th 693, 695–96 (8th Cir. 2021) (similarly holding that “there is no question” after Borden that a conviction under the same Texas <mask> provisions is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act “[g]iven that Texas’s version of aggravated assault criminalizes ‘recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury’”). See, e.g., United States v. Zapata-Camacho, 808 F. App’x 272, 273–74 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Vega-Rivas, 774 F. App’x 899, 900 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Gomez, 770 F. App’x 194, 194 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Sanabia-Sanchez, 746 F. App’x 425, 426 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 894 F.3d 1274, 1274 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc); United States v. Nunez-Medrano, 751 F. App’x 494, 501 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Olivarez, 749 F. App’x 277, 278 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Aspirlla, 738 F. App’x 302, 303 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Rodriguez-Garcia, 748 F. App’x 597, 598 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Carrillo-Hernandez, 749 F. App’x 246, 247 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Canales-Bonilla, 735 F. App’x 154, 155–56 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Valdez, 734 F. App’x 291, 291–92 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Flores, 734 F. App’x 277, 278 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Santos-Gabino, 732 F. App’x 320, 321 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Bello, 731 F. App’x 340, 340–41 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Montanez-Trejo, 708 F. App’x 161, 168 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Nunez, 680 F. App’x 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2017) (Graves, J., dissenting); United States v. Ulloa, 668 F.


Specifically, the severed charges included counts: second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1) (count eight); second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon with a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(b)(1) (count nine); third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (heroin), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count ten); third-degree possession of a CDS (heroin) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3) (count eleven); second-degree possession of a weapon while committing certain CDS offenses, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1) (count twelve); and fourth-degree <mask>, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(a) (count thirteen).


The record demonstrates that the court considered the totality of the circumstances and found that defendant did not deserve relief from his original sentence, only after the court balanced defendant’s extensive criminal history, defendant’s denial of any responsibility at trial and sentencing, and the circumstances of the underlying offenses, against the evidence of defendant’s postincarceration rehabilitation. Defendant’s extensive criminal record in New York and New Jersey, including five felonies, is replete with crimes of violence that were very serious, regardless of whether they would technically qualify as New York violent felonies. Among other crimes, defendant has been convicted of possession of a loaded handgun and ammunition, <mask> with a deadly weapon, and home invasion robbery and burglary of another drug dealer’s home, during which defendant covered a 12-year-old boy’s head in a pillow case. This last offense was committed after defendant absconded after being released on bail on drug charges in New York. Defendant also has prior convictions for possession of large quantities of drugs, including near a school, and drug selling paraphernalia. The instant crimes not only involved a large quantity of drugs, but also a reckless high-speed car chase that resulted in injuries to innocent persons, property damage, and the complete sealing off of the West Side Highway for hours.


Per Curiam. On December 15, 1994, the respondent was convicted, upon a jury verdict in the New Jersey Superior Court, of the crimes of <mask> in the second degree, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:12-1 (b) (1); simple assault, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:12-1 (a); and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes in the third degree, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:39-4 (d).


Pursuant to Penal Law § 120.11, a person is guilty of <mask> on a police officer when “with intent to cause serious physical injury to a person whom he knows or reasonably should know to be a police officer . . . engaged in the course of performing his official duties, he causes such injury by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” In contrast, a person is guilty of assault on a police officer “when, with intent to prevent a . . . police officer . . . from performing a lawful duty, he causes serious physical injury to such . . . police officer” (Penal Law § 120.08). The element of intent with respect to the crime of aggravated assault upon a police officer relates to the causing of physical injury, while the element of intent with respect to the crime of attempted assault of a police officer “relates not to the result proscribed by the statute — causing the injury — but to the circumstances which make that result one for which defendant is strictly liable” (People v Campbell, 72 NY2d 602, 605 [1988]). Since “the lesser crime requires demonstration of an element or fact not required by the greater, the impossibility test has not been met” (Green, 56 NY2d at 431, citing People v Graham, 44 NY2d 768 [1978]).


*586A few weeks after the retrial, Moon was indicted on the bail jumping and failure to appear charge in this case. Shortly before the trial of this case, Lori died of cancer. During the guilt/innocence stage of the trial of this case, over Moon's objection, the trial court admitted that portion of Lori's testimony from the <mask> trial set forth in footnote 3. Moon argues on appeal that the introduction of this testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.


Regarding the pint glass introduced at trial, co-counsel testified that he agreed to let it come in for a number of reasons. Specifically, co-counsel noted that because the Petitioner was charged with <mask> with a deadly weapon,3 whether the glass was a deadly weapon became a factual issue at trial. Accordingly, co-counsel believed it would be beneficial to the Petitioner to show the smaller pint glass as opposed to the “giant fishbowl glasses” that Gerst Haus also used. When asked whether the Petitioner had asked co-counsel to locate Ms. Schaffer, co-counsel testified that he remembered discussing Ms. Shaffer but could not recall the contents or length of the discussions. Co-counsel agreed that Gerst Haus was no longer in business but that it was open at the time of the Petitioner’s trial.


The more serious crime of <mask> in violation of Penal Code section 245 can be committed in a number of ways. Three types of aggravated assault are relevant here: (1) by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, (2) by means of an inherently deadly weapon, and (3) by means of an object not designed to be a weapon but alleged to be a deadly weapon as used . The first and third type require a *685showing of the amount of force the defendant used during the assault. "[T]he jury's decisionmaking process in an aggravated assault case ... is functionally identical regardless of whether, in the particular case, the defendant employed a weapon alleged to be deadly as used or employed force likely to produce great bodily injury; in either instance, the decision turns on the nature of the force [the defendant] used ." ( Aguilar , supra , 16 Cal.4th at p. 1035, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 655, 945 P.2d 1204, italics added.) Only the second variety, assault with an inherently deadly weapon, requires no showing of force. Merely using the weapon to attempt an injury is enough.


On January 27, 2017, while serving Lunsford with a warrant for <mask>, police officers found Lunsford in possession of a loaded pistol. The aggravated-assault charges were later dropped, but the felon-in-possession charge went forward. At the bench trial, Sheriff Jeffrey King testified about serving the warrant on Lunsford and finding the gun. The State then introduced evidence of Lunsford's 2002 felony conviction and rested. Lunsford moved to dismiss, arguing the evidence was insufficient; the motion was denied. Lunsford then introduced the 2005 order to seal his 2002 felony conviction and argued that the expungement of his felony conviction restored his right to possess a firearm. Lunsford again moved to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge. The circuit court denied that motion as well, and Lunsford now appeals.


On review before this Court, the majority has concluded that the court of appeals erred by failing to consider all of the evidence presented at trial that might have supported the <mask> offense alleged in the indictment when conducting its legal sufficiency analysis. Specifically, the court of appeals failed to consider the evidence supporting what the majority views as the second assaultive event-evidence showing that Appellant used one hand to choke Melanie while simultaneously using the other hand to pour water down her throat.


¶1 Gabriel Bedonie appeals from his convictions and sentences for armed robbery and <mask>. Bedonie argues that allowing the State to amend the indictment during his motion for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule) 20 violated Rule 13.5 and caused him prejudice. Bedonie also argues that the court’s failure to follow Rule 26.10(a) at the sentencing hearing renders his sentence incomplete and invalid. Finding no prejudice in the court’s decision to grant an amendment to the indictment and no error in the court’s sentencing, we affirm.


Patently, threatening another with imminent bodily injury is engaging in conduct. When that threat is accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon, by definition the victim is "exposed" to the deadly character of the weapon and the inherent risk of serious bodily injury. The danger of serious bodily injury is necessarily established when a deadly weapon is used in the commission of an offense. It follows, therefore, that proof of threatening another with imminent bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon constitutes proof of engaging in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Id. at 438-39 (emphasis original). Given this reasoning, we held that reckless conduct was a lesser-included offense of "the offense charged" because it could be established by proof of the same facts required to establish the commission of <mask> by the use of a deadly weapon. Id. at 439.


In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, effective December 21, 2005, the New York State Legislature, in an extraordinary session, enacted the Crimes Against Police Act.2 The act (L 2005, ch 765, as amended) supplemented the Penal and Criminal Procedure Laws by establishing the crimes *427of menacing of a police officer (Penal Law § 120.18), <mask> upon a police officer (Penal Law § 120.11), aggravated criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.11), aggravated manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.22), aggravated manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.21) and aggravated murder (Penal Law § 125.26), and increased the minimum sentences of imprisonment for certain offenses involving the assault of police officers.


The alleged irregularity is not specified in the notice of motion. (Rule 25.) The undertaking is valid, though signed by only one surety and not by the plaintiffs. (iSeld., 446.) The sufficiency of the surety is not questioned. The amount of bail cannot be reduced, as the opposing affidavits are explicit as to the fact of an <mask>, and on this motion it is impossible.to say that they are untrue, and that the affiants on the part of the plaintiffs testify truly. That question must be determined by a jury.


204 (Fruits) [evidence of prior threats the defendant made against his mother, and other prior acts of violence against her were similar to the charged offense involving his mother and thus highly probative]; People v. Hoover (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1029 (Hoover) [§ 1109 evidence relevant to domestic violence was admissible in view of the fact that the evidence involved the defendant’s history of similar conduct against the same victim and the evidence was not unduly inflammatory].) Defendant emphasizes differences between the prior acts and the charged offenses such as the time of day and the fact that he previously only entered the attached garage and not the residence itself. He also asserts that, during the prior acts, he did not carry a weapon as alleged regarding the charged crimes. We conclude that these differences were insignificant compared to the fact that he victimized the same people, at the same place, employed a similar means of entry causing similar damage, repeatedly violated a restraining order and, with the exception of one incident, left the scene before the police arrived. In the context of this case, these similarities were substantial enough to have sufficient probative value. Regarding the charged burglary count, as stated ante, the prosecution proceeded on the theories that, when defendant entered the house, his intent was to commit <mask> or theft. The circumstantial evidence pointed to defendant as the person who stole items of property from the home on at least two prior occasions. Additionally, in another prior act, defendant went to the house and attempted to assault his brother with a motor vehicle. These prior acts were relevant to defendant’s intent when he entered into the house on March 29, 2018. 7


The juvenile court found that appellant's "record and previous history" weighed in support of discretionary transfer. The court found that appellant had a "lengthy history" of referrals to the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, which started when he was 12 years old. In support of its findings, the court described the circumstances leading to five prior referrals to the Juvenile Probation Department, including an assault on his mother, criminal mischief, assault and harassment of a public servant, and burglary of a habitation. The order also noted that appellant had been placed in the Harris County Youth Village, the Burnett-Bayland Rehabilitation Center, and the Harris County Leadership Academy. The court found that after the referral for burglary of a habitation, appellant violated his probation, and he was transferred to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. It noted that appellant was released in November 2016, and he was on parole when he allegedly committed capital murder and <mask>.


[¶1] Wayne Herbert Martinez appeals from a criminal judgment in which he was found guilty of <mask>. Martinez argues his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Martinez did not move to dismiss the criminal complaint. A defendant who fails to move to dismiss based on a speedy trial violation and submits to trial forfeits their claim asserting a violation of their right to a speedy trial. See State v. Jensen, 2021 ND 119, ¶¶ 14-17, 962 N.W.2d 393; State v. Hamre, 2019 ND 86, ¶¶ 6, 14-15, 924 N.W.2d 776; Koenig v. State, 2018 ND 59, ¶¶ 2, 14-24, 907 N.W.2d 344. After a review of the arguments properly presented on appeal, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).


A grand jury indicted Gutierrez with three counts of <mask>, one count of assault on a public servant, and one count of harassment of a public servant. Gutierrez elected for a jury to determine his guilt. After the jury was sworn in, the State called its first witness, Officer Ruben Ramirez. At that time, one of the jurors informed the judge that he went to school with Ramirez. The judge excused the remainder of the jury, and the attorneys and judge questioned the juror.3 The juror stated that he could be fair and impartial even though he and Ramirez had mutual friends in high school and had seen each other every couple of years since graduating eighteen years before.


MY BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS: D. Arnold (Affiant) was assigned to investigate <mask> and reviewed offense report #161435712D written by Officer A. Deleon. Affiant was dispatched to 10500 Northwest Freeway, Houston, Harris County, Texas. Affiant learned from Officer A. Deleon that Cindy Davis (Witness) reported that on December 24, 2012 she observed two men (Complainants) lying injured on the side of the roadway with their hands tied and mouths duct taped. Affiant learned from HPD Officer A. Deleon that Complainants had apparent gunshot wounds to their bodies and had been transported to Ben Taub Hospital for treatment. Affiant spoke to Diane Deyoung who witnessed Complainants coming out of a white van license plate AV5-0784 before the [sic] continued down the road without stopping. Affiant learned from hospital personnel that Moses Glekiah (Complainant Glekiah) was recovering from gunshot wounds and Richard Merchant (Complainant Merchant) was in critical condition for his gunshot injuries. Affiant spoke with Moses Glekiah (Complainant Glekiah) and learned he and his friend Richard Merchant (Complainant Merchant) had agreed to engage in [sic] business transaction at 2501-C #2 Central Parkway Houston, Harris County, Texas with a male known as "Jerry." When Complainants arrived on December 24, 2012 at the business that they describe as an autoshop, they are grabbed by several males and held against their will. Complainant Glekiah reported that Suspects also stole their cash money $400 that Complainants had in their possession, wallets, cell phone and a suitcase/briefcase container belonging to Complainant Merchant. Suspect 1 poured gasoline on Complainants and held lighter near Complainants threatening to set them on fire. Suspect 1 then called two other Suspects who put Complainants in truck at gunpoint. Complainant Glekiah says that he felt in fear for their lives. Complainants jumped out of the van because they believed they were going to be killed. As Complainant [sic] leaped out of the vehicle they were shot by Suspects. Complainant Glekiah directed Affiant to autoshop where this Aggravated Assault and Robbery occurred at 2501-C *227#2 Central Parkway Houston, Harris County, Texas. Affiant researched the location and found the owner to be Charese Foreman. Affiant review computer databases and discovered that Charese Foreman is married to Nathan Ray Foreman. Affiant reviewed criminal history of Nathan Ray Foreman and found that he had been charged with autotheft, possession of prohibited weapon and delivery of cocaine. Affiant showed Complainant Glekiah a known photograph of Nathan Ray Foreman along with five other photos of similar looking males. Complainant Glekiah positively identified Nathan Ray Foreman as Suspect 1 who participated in punching Complainants, told other suspects what to do, poured the gasoline on Complainants and contacted 2 suspects to drive Complainant away from business. Affiant knows that gasoline and lighter are deadly weapons that can kill a person. Affiant believes that Complainants and Suspects DNA will be inside the Target Location along with property belonging to Complainant such as money, suitcase/briefcase, wallets, cell phone, identification cards. Also instrumentalities of the crime such as white van that transported Complainants, guns used to shoot Complainants, zip ties used to tie complainants may also be inside Target Location. The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress.


We disagree with the court of appeals's reliance on the reasoning of the Seventh Court of Appeals in Miller v. State , which distinguished Bell based on the inclusion of "use or exhibit" language in the indictments. Safian , 2016 WL 828337, at *7-8 (citing Miller v. State , 86 S.W.3d 663, 666-67 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2002, pet. ref'd) ). The court of appeals erred by finding that Bell 's holding does not apply under the instant circumstances in which the indictment alleges the use or exhibition of a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon. For all of the reasons explained above, we agree that the exhibition of a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon implicates the same inherent danger of serious bodily injury that accompanies the use of a deadly weapon. This was the principle on which our holding in Bell relied. Because the exhibition of a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon during the course of an assault poses the same imminent danger of serious bodily injury as would using a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon, deadly conduct is a lesser-included offense of <mask> as alleged here. We conclude that Bell 's discussion that deadly conduct is, as a matter of law, a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon applies equally to the instant circumstances involving the alleged use or exhibition of a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon.


In Boorman v Deutsch, after a remand to reassess as excessive compensatory and punitive damages of $5,000,000 awarded upon default (152 AD2d 48, 55 [1st Dept 1989]), a second inquest or assessment of damages was held on August 13, 1990 in Supreme Court, New York County (index No. 29609/84), in iA Part 2, before Justice Eugene L. Nardelli. Justice Nardelli thereafter awarded $1,000,000 past compensatory damages; $750,000 future compensatory damages plus $1,000,000 punitive damages for sexual and <mask> over an evening and a night for which defendant was convicted of two felonies in New Jersey, following testimony by plaintiff and a psychologist. The plaintiff and defendant had renewed a prior social and sexual dating relationship which turned violent.


COUNT 1-A [AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT] [Hernandez] [d]id then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of the female sexual organ of Melanie Molien by [his] finger, without the consent of Melanie Molien, and in the course of the same criminal episode the defendant attempted to cause the death of Melanie Molien by strangulation and waterboarding. COUNT 1-B & C [AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT] [Hernandez] [d]id then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of the female sexual organ of Melanie Molien by [his] finger, without the consent of Melanie Molien, and [Hernandez] did then and there by acts or words threaten to cause, or place, Melanie Molien in fear that death or serious bodily injury would be imminently inflicted on Melanie Molien, and said acts or words occurred in the presence of Melanie Molien. COUNT 1-D [AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT] [Hernandez] [d]id then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration *326of the female sexual organ of Melanie Molien by [his] finger, without the consent of Melanie Molien, and in the course of the same criminal episode [Hernandez] used or exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit: water. COUNT 2 [<mask> WITH A DEADLY WEAPON] [Hernandez] [d]id then and there intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Melanie Molien by striking the victim's head or body with [his] hands, and the defendant did then and there use or exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: water, during the commission of said assault. COUNT 3 [ASSAULT FAMILY VIOLENCE/STRANGULATION] [Hernandez] [d]id then and there intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Melanie Molien, a person with whom the defendant has or has had a dating relationship, by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of Melanie Molien by applying pressure to the throat or neck and blocking the nose or mouth of Melanie Molien. The jury found Hernandez guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon "as alleged in the indictment" and guilty of the lesser-included offense of sexual assault, but it acquitted him of family-violence assault by strangulation. The jury recommended that Hernandez be placed on community supervision for 10 years for the sexual-assault offense, but it sentenced him to seven years' confinement for the aggravated-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon offense.


In an amended petition, Baker pleaded a new cause of action for nuisance under Chapter 125 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. He alleged that LFMC Enterprises, Feng, and Chan "maintained, aided and abetted, and otherwise permitted and facilitated the existence of a highly dangerous, unlicensed, and illegal nightclub." He also asserted that people habitually went to the nightclub for illegal purposes, such as publicly discharging a firearm, recklessly discharging a firearm, engaging in gang activity, <mask>, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, and unlawfully carrying a weapon. Though Baker did not allege that LFMC Enterprises, Feng, and Chan participated in these illegal activities, he did allege that they knew about and tolerated them without making reasonable attempts at abatement because they were profiting from the rental revenue. He further maintained that the illegal and dangerous activities were continuing on the premises and that, "singularly and collectively," they constituted a nuisance under the statute. Baker sought damages and an injunction to prohibit the appellants from allowing an unlicensed nightclub to operate on their premises.


Per Curiam. On December 15, 1994, the respondent was convicted, upon a jury verdict in the New Jersey Superior Court, of the crimes of <mask> in the second degree, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:12-1 (b) (1); simple assault, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:12-1 (a); and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes in the third degree, in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 2C:39-4 (d).


The United States Probation Office recommended classifying Lawson as a career offender because he had two prior state court convictions—one for a crime of violence (a 2011 Florida conviction for <mask> of a law enforcement officer with a firearm) and another for a controlled substance offense (a 2004 Florida conviction for possession, sale, or delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). As USCA11 Case: 20-14776 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 4 of 17


In 2009, Appellant was convicted of <mask> with a deadly weapon. The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This court subsequently affirmed Appellant's conviction in an opinion and judgment issued in 2011. Dohnal v. State , No. 11-09-00236-CR, 2011 WL 319950 (Tex. App.-Eastland Jan. 27, 2011, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We recited the facts of the case as follows in our previous opinion:


Garcia appealed, contending, inter alia: the district court plainly erred in treating his prior Texas conviction for <mask> as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 (defining crime of violence) and, therefore, as an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining aggravated felony as crime of violence) and § 1326(b)(2) (criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens). Because he did not preserve the aggravated-assault issue in district court, review was only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Garcia maintained his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault—in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a)—did not constitute a crime of violence because the Texas conviction included reckless conduct, which does not involve “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” element required by § 16. See 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Our court affirmed, based on our precedent providing that Garcia’s violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a) constituted a crime of violence. See United States v. Gracia-Cantu, 920 F.3d 252, 253–54 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (holding conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1), which § 22.02(a) incorporates, is a crime of violence). (We also remanded in part for the limited purpose of the court’s correcting the written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing. That issue is not before our court on remand.) United States v. Garcia, 838 Fed. App’x 901 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). The Supreme Court has since held: the definition of “violent felony”—requiring “use of physical force against the person of another”— does not include reckless behavior. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) (plurality opinion).


Mother initially denied knowing anyone named Ramone L. After admitting to knowing Ramone L., Mother denied being in a romantic relationship with Ramone L. and stated he was a friend. According to the records admitted at trial, Ramone L. is a man who was charged in December 2020 with <mask> after Mother was struck with a bullet from what police believed to be a .380 caliber gun. Mother described it as “a whole misunderstanding.” According to Mother, she was walking and a bullet bounced on her leg and Ramone L. and two other individuals had helped her. Ramone L. ultimately pled guilty to assault in January 2021, although Mother denied that she had a tumultuous relationship with him.