The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the manslaughter conviction of Jason Alexander Cisneros, who was found guilty in connection with a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of Sierra Rhodd. The court's decision, issued on September 30, 2026, affirms the jury's verdict, emphasizing the sufficiency of the evidence presented during the trial.
This case is significant as it highlights the legal principles surrounding manslaughter and the responsibilities of individuals involved in violent crimes, particularly when innocent victims are harmed. The ruling affects not only Cisneros but also sets a precedent for similar cases involving retaliatory violence and the accountability of co-conspirators.
Background
The case arose from a tragic incident on September 13, 2020, when Sierra Rhodd, a young woman with cerebral palsy, was struck multiple times during a drive-by shooting while lying in her bed. The shooting was allegedly a retaliation for an armed robbery earlier that day involving Sierra's brother, Tanner Rhodd, and one of Cisneros's associates, Xavier Fletcher.
The State of Texas charged Cisneros with murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1)–(2). However, during the trial, the jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, defined under Texas Penal Code § 19.04(a). The trial court allowed the jury to consider multiple theories of conviction, including that Cisneros acted as a primary actor, a party, or a co-conspirator in the shooting.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, in a lead opinion by an unnamed judge, affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating, "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the shooting that caused Sierra’s death." The court addressed several issues raised by Cisneros, including the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and the admissibility of evidence obtained during his arrest.
The court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the manslaughter conviction. It noted that the jury could infer from communications between Cisneros and his associates that there was a retaliatory motive behind the shooting. The court stated, "The evidence showed a retaliatory motive; Appellant’s embrace of retaliatory violence; coordinated communications arranging meetings, travel, and timing before the offense; surveillance and cell-site evidence placing the participants together before and during the shooting; eyewitness testimony identifying Appellant and his vehicle near the scene; and firearm evidence linking Appellant, his associates, and his vehicle to weapons used in the attack."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving gang-related violence and retaliatory shootings. It reinforces the idea that individuals can be held criminally responsible for the actions of their associates if they are found to have participated in a conspiracy or acted in furtherance of a common unlawful purpose. The court's decision also clarifies the standards for evaluating evidence in such cases, particularly regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
By affirming the conviction, the court sends a clear message that those involved in planning or executing violent acts, even if they do not directly pull the trigger, can still face serious legal consequences. This case may influence how similar cases are prosecuted in Texas and potentially beyond.
What's Next
Cisneros has the option to appeal the ruling to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court for criminal cases in Texas. Details regarding any related cases or pending appeals were not available in the court filing.