Castillo-Villamin v. State, 02-24-00442-CR, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 235th District Court of Cooke County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery, holding that the “safe place” mitigation defense is unavailable when a victim is abandoned in a remote location at night without communication tools. Additionally, the court confirmed that a “deadly weapon” finding is legally sufficient based on consistent testimonial evidence from the victim and a co-defendant, even in the absence of the weapon’s physical recovery at the scene.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this holding provides a high-court framework for defining “safety” and “danger” in the context of Protective Orders and SAPCR temporary orders. When a party argues that their conduct did not rise to the level of “clear and present danger” because the victim was eventually left unharmed, Castillo-Villamin serves as a strategic rebuttal. By applying the Butcher factors—remoteness, time of day, and access to help—litigators can argue that “releasing” a spouse or child in a manner that isolates them or denies them communication (such as withholding a cell phone or leaving them in an unfamiliar area) constitutes a continued threat to safety, justifying restrictive supervised possession or the issuance of a Title 4 Protective Order.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Abner Josue Castillo-Villamin and a co-defendant abducted a woman at knife-point from a parking lot in Dallas. During the commission of the robbery, Castillo forced the victim into her own vehicle and drove for approximately ninety minutes. They eventually stopped on a remote gravel access road near a bridge crossing the Red River at the Texas–Oklahoma border. After forcing the victim to her knees—leaving her and the co-defendant in fear of an imminent execution—the assailants abandoned her in the dark. Crucially, they kept the victim’s cell phone, leaving her with no means of communication. The victim was forced to wave down passing motorists for twenty minutes before finding help. Although a knife was not found on Castillo at the time of his arrest, one was discovered hidden in the vehicle a year later by the victim’s family. Castillo was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery, receiving sentences of thirty and fifteen years, respectively.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s rejection of the affirmative defense that the defendant voluntarily released the victim in a “safe place.”
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon (a knife) during the robbery.
Rules Applied
- Texas Penal Code § 20.04(d): Provides a punishment-stage affirmative defense if the defendant voluntarily released the victim in a “safe place,” reducing the felony degree.
- The Butcher Factors (Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13): A seven-factor test to determine if a location is a “safe place,” including: (1) remoteness, (2) proximity of help, (3) time of day, (4) climate, (5) condition of the complainant, (6) character of the location, and (7) familiarity.
- Texas Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17): Defines a “deadly weapon” as anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
- Sufficiency Standards (Petetan v. State): Affirmative defenses are reviewed for legal sufficiency by looking for more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the rejection, and for factual sufficiency by determining if the rejection is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Application
The Court applied the Butcher factors to the abandonment on the Red River bridge. The Court noted that while the victim was eventually found, the location was remote, the time was late at night, and the victim was unfamiliar with the area. Most importantly, the Court emphasized that by taking the victim’s phone, Castillo effectively severed her “proximity to help.” The court reasoned that a place is not “safe” if the victim is left in a state of vulnerability where help is a matter of chance rather than a reasonable certainty.
Regarding the deadly weapon finding, the Court dismissed the defense’s argument that the failure to find a knife immediately after the arrest rendered the evidence insufficient. The Court pointed to the victim’s testimony—feeling the blade against her back—and the co-defendant’s testimony confirming the presence of the knife. Under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the testimony of these two witnesses was sufficient for a rational jury to find the use of a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of the physical evidence’s delayed discovery.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the issue of “safe release,” the Court held that the jury’s rejection of the affirmative defense was supported by sufficient evidence because the environmental factors and the deprivation of the victim’s communication tools created a situation of inherent danger. On the issue of the “deadly weapon,” the Court held that testimonial evidence alone is sufficient to support a finding under Section 29.03 of the Penal Code, and the jury was entitled to believe the witnesses over the defendant’s theory regarding the missing weapon.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for family law litigators when drafting “Findings of Fact” in cases involving domestic abduction or abandonment.
- In Custody Litigation: Use the Butcher factors to challenge a parent’s “safe” return of a child. If a parent drops a child off at an unmonitored commercial location or at an hour where the other parent is not present, Castillo-Villamin supports the argument that the child was not “safely released,” impacting the “best interest” analysis for conservatorship.
- In Protective Order Hearings: Use the “deadly weapon” analysis to overcome the “no weapon recovered” defense. If a client can testify to the sensation or sight of a weapon, and circumstantial evidence (like a co-witness or later-found item) exists, the court can and should make a deadly weapon finding, which has significant implications for the duration and terms of the Protective Order.
Checklists
Evaluating “Safe Place” in Family Violence Scenarios
- Remoteness: Was the victim or child left in a location where they were isolated from public view?
- Communication: Did the actor deprive the victim of their cell phone or electronic means of summoning aid?
- Environmental Factors: What was the time of day and the weather? (Nighttime abandonment carries a higher weight for “danger”).
- Victim Condition: Was the victim in a state of emotional shock or physical injury that impaired their ability to seek help?
- Familiarity: Was the victim left in an area where they knew the surroundings or were they intentionally disoriented?
Proving Weapon Use Without Physical Recovery
- Sensory Testimony: Did the victim feel the weapon (e.g., the “scratch” of a blade or the “cold” of steel)?
- Witness Corroboration: Are there third-party witnesses or co-defendants who can testify to seeing the weapon?
- Subsequent Discovery: Has the vehicle or residence been searched weeks or months later? (Per Castillo-Villamin, delayed discovery does not invalidate the initial use).
- Intended Use: Did the actor’s words combined with the presence of the object indicate an intent to cause death or serious injury?
Citation
Castillo-Villamin v. State, Nos. 02-24-00442-CR & 02-24-00443-CR, 2026 WL [Pending] (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The Castillo-Villamin decision can be effectively weaponized in Texas divorce and custody litigation to expand the definition of “family violence” beyond physical strikes. Specifically, litigators should use the Court’s adoption of the Butcher factors to argue that constructive abandonment—such as leaving a spouse at a gas station without a phone or money after an argument—constitutes a “threat of imminent bodily injury” under the Family Code. By demonstrating that the environment met the criteria for “unsafe” (nighttime, no communication, remote), a practitioner can secure a finding of family violence that triggers the Section 153.004 rebuttable presumption against joint managing conservatorship. This case stands for the proposition that the cessation of an assault does not equal the commencement of safety; safety is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the victim to have a reliable, immediate path to assistance.
~~0e0b17c3-5056-4154-af4e-57668dd4de97~~
Share this content: