The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the murder conviction of Jorge Luis Almeida, who was found guilty of killing Julius Santaromana by asphyxiation. The court's decision, issued on July 13, 2026, confirms Almeida's 58-year sentence and a finding that he used a deadly weapon in the act. This ruling affects Almeida, who argued that he acted in self-defense and that the trial court erred in not allowing jury instructions on lesser charges.
The case stems from an incident in August 2018, when Almeida and Santaromana, known to each other through their involvement in rooster fighting, became involved in a physical altercation outside Santaromana's home. Witnesses reported seeing Almeida on top of Santaromana, holding him in a chokehold while Santaromana appeared unresponsive. Despite attempts by family members to intervene, Santaromana later died due to asphyxiation, with medical experts providing conflicting testimony regarding the exact cause of death.
Almeida's first trial ended in a hung jury, but during the second trial, the prosecution argued that Almeida's actions directly led to Santaromana's death. Almeida's defense claimed that he acted in self-defense and requested jury instructions on this defense as well as on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The trial court denied these requests, leading to Almeida's appeal.
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, stating that Almeida failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of self-defense. The court noted, "No evidence was presented from any source that circumstantially or directly showed that Almeida subjectively believed that he needed to use deadly force in self-defense or that such belief was objectively reasonable." This ruling was made by Chief Justice Maria Salas Mendoza, along with Justices Palafox and Soto.
In addition to rejecting the self-defense claim, the court also dismissed Almeida's argument for a lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The court explained that Almeida did not provide affirmative evidence that he acted recklessly rather than intentionally, which is required to warrant such an instruction. The court stated, "The fact that Almeida used excessive force is not... evidence from which a jury could find that he did not intend to cause serious bodily injury."
Furthermore, the court upheld the trial court's finding that Almeida used a deadly weapon during the commission of the crime. The court clarified that the jury's guilty verdict inherently included a finding that Almeida's actions constituted the use of a deadly weapon, stating, "The jury’s guilty verdict in response to the above application paragraph is an affirmative deadly-weapon finding." This aspect of the ruling reinforces the legal definition of a deadly weapon as anything capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
The implications of this ruling are significant for Almeida, who remains convicted of murder and sentenced to 58 years in prison. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for establishing self-defense in Texas and the importance of presenting adequate evidence to support claims of lesser charges in criminal cases. The ruling also reinforces the legal interpretations surrounding deadly weapon findings in murder cases.
Looking ahead, Almeida may consider further legal options, including a potential appeal to a higher court. However, details regarding any such actions were not available in the court filing. As it stands, the Texas Court of Appeals' ruling solidifies Almeida's conviction and underscores the complexities of self-defense claims in violent crime cases.