Marco Antonio Moreno Vasquez convicted of murder and deadly conduct; jury assesses 40- and 6-year sentences

A Bexar County jury found Marco Antonio Moreno Vasquez guilty of murder and deadly conduct and later assessed his punishment at 40 years on the murder charge and six years on the deadly-conduct charge, with $1,500 fines on each count, the court record shows.

Judge Stephanie Boyd read the jury’s verdicts to the courtroom and polled jurors to confirm they were unanimous. The judge later entered judgment consistent with the verdicts and stated the two terms would run concurrently; the court also made an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used on Count 1.

The punishment phase followed closing arguments in which defense attorney David A. Garcia asked jurors to weigh mitigation: Garcia told jurors that Vasquez has no prior felony convictions, has a wife and three children and had been living and working in the United States for more than 20 years. Garcia argued Vasquez was not the shooter and said jurors should consider threats his client claimed to have received from a co-defendant. “He should have told them that he was in fear for his life, and he was being threatened by Adas,” Garcia told the jury, urging leniency and mercy.

The prosecutor urged a significantly longer term. “If you believe that we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant was the mastermind behind this murder, then I ask that you sentence him to 45 years,” the state told jurors, and asked the jury to deny community supervision on Count 2 and to impose fines in addition to prison time.

After deliberations the jury assessed 40 years’ confinement and a $1,500 fine on Count 1 and 6 years’ confinement and a $1,500 fine on Count 2, and specifically recommended denial of community supervision on Count 2. The court entered those terms and said the counts would run concurrently; the judge also recorded the affirmative deadly-weapon finding on the murder count.

The defense indicated it would file a motion for appeal and asked that the court keep the interpreter available while they prepared paperwork. Because this case was tried to a jury rather than resolved by plea, the court noted the defendant retains his right to appeal the jury's verdict.

The proceedings included routine jury instructions about parole eligibility and the statutory punishment ranges for the offenses; the jury also asked the court during deliberations whether the sentences ran concurrently or consecutively, and the court responded that the jury had the law before it and should continue deliberating.

The conviction and sentence follow the jury’s earlier finding of guilt on both counts and a full punishment-phase hearing in the 187th District Court, presided over by Judge Stephanie Boyd.