Anthony Cerda is accused of killing 90-year-old Francisco Chura, but the evidence and legal claims have not been tested at trial.
HOUSTON, Tex. — A capital murder charge filed against Anthony Cerda places the death of a 90-year-old Houston store owner in the state’s most serious category of homicide cases, based on an allegation that the killing occurred during a robbery.
Cerda, 34, was arrested June 12 in connection with the death of Francisco Chura, who was attacked Aug. 20, 2025, at the Canal Street property where he lived and operated a convenience store. Chura died at a hospital Sept. 7. Court records reported by ABC13 and Law&Crime say about $3,000 was missing from an open safe after the assault. That alleged theft is legally significant because prosecutors must prove more than an intentional killing to sustain a capital murder theory based on robbery.
The charge was filed in the 232nd Criminal District Court, according to Houston police. Cerda was already being held in the Harris County Jail on an unrelated matter when police obtained the homicide warrant. The department said its Eastside Division Gang Unit carried out the arrest. Publicly reviewed reports do not identify Cerda’s defense attorney, state whether he has entered a plea or disclose whether the Harris County District Attorney’s Office plans to seek the death penalty. A capital murder charge does not automatically establish what punishment prosecutors will request.
The Houston Police Department’s official release was brief. It said patrol officers answered an assault call at 7801 Canal St. at about 9 a.m. and found Chura with multiple injuries. Paramedics took him to a hospital, where he later died. The release identified homicide investigators D. Toledo and H. Martinez and said their inquiry led to Cerda. It did not discuss the reported break-in, screwdriver, safe, DNA test or witness statements that appear in the probable cause account obtained by news organizations.
That difference matters because an arrest affidavit presents the facts investigators and prosecutors rely on to establish probable cause, not a final determination of guilt. Probable cause is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the state would need at trial. Statements in such a filing may be challenged, excluded or interpreted differently as the case develops. Cerda denied killing Chura when interviewed by detectives, according to Law&Crime’s report, and the public record reviewed for this article contains no confession made in court.
The state’s robbery theory begins with the reported condition of Chura’s safe. Investigators said it was open and empty, and Chura told detectives before his death that about $3,000 was gone. A missing sum and an open safe can support an inference of theft, but prosecutors would still have to connect the alleged taking to Cerda and to the fatal assault. The reports do not say that police recovered the cash, found it among Cerda’s property or documented financial activity showing that he possessed it.
Prosecutors may also use evidence about Chura’s earlier interactions with people seeking money. One witness told police that Chura had given money to a man who returned and demanded more on the night before the assault, according to the reported affidavit. Chura said he refused and removed the person from the store, but he did not identify the man to that witness. A nearby homeowner separately told investigators that Cerda knew Chura, visited the store and sometimes borrowed money from him. Those statements could provide context, though each would remain subject to evidentiary rules and questioning.
The homeowner, identified in reports as Cerda’s aunt, told detectives that Cerda sometimes stayed with her because he lacked stable housing. About two months after the attack, officers reportedly found a long-haired man hiding in a crawl space beneath her nearby home. She identified him as Cerda. Chura had described the attacker as having long hair. Flight or concealment may be presented by prosecutors as evidence of consciousness of guilt in some circumstances, but Cerda’s purpose for hiding and the reason police were present would still require factual development.
Cerda’s reported statements to investigators are likely to receive close attention. He denied responsibility and said he had never been inside Chura’s convenience store. The homeowner’s account directly disputed that assertion by placing him in the business and describing Chura’s financial help. A contradiction can affect a person’s credibility, but it does not independently prove capital murder. Prosecutors would need to establish which account is accurate through admissible testimony and supporting evidence.
A different witness later told detectives that Cerda had made an incriminating statement after the killing. During a January 2026 interview, the man claimed Cerda said, “I killed Pancho,” referring to Chura by his nickname, according to the affidavit reported by Law&Crime. The public reports do not indicate that the comment was recorded or witnessed by anyone else. Defense lawyers commonly examine when such statements were reported, whether the witness had a reason to cooperate and whether the quoted language was recalled accurately.
The strongest reported physical evidence is the DNA analysis of a screwdriver recovered in Chura’s room. Court records say investigators found the tool bent and stained with blood. A laboratory later determined that genetic material from Chura and Cerda was present, the reports say. The result appears to have prompted police to seek the arrest warrant. Even so, a DNA association does not answer every question on its own. The parties may dispute where the sample was found, how it was collected, when the DNA was deposited and what statistical conclusions the laboratory reached.
The state may argue that the DNA should be considered together with the alleged point of entry and Chura’s injuries. Investigators say an air-conditioning unit had been removed from a rear window, allowing entry into the residential room attached to the store. Chura said he was asleep when a man struck him and attacked him with the screwdriver. He told police that he pretended to be dead, waited until the assailant was gone and later reached a neighbor’s home. His statements may raise legal questions because Chura is unavailable to testify at trial, although courts allow some statements by deceased victims under defined circumstances.
The defense would have opportunities to seek discovery, review forensic documentation, examine police interviews and challenge evidence through pretrial motions. It could also investigate whether Cerda had previously handled objects at Chura’s property, given the conflicting reports about whether he had been inside the store. Nothing in the currently available accounts establishes an innocent explanation for the reported DNA, but prosecutors retain the burden of proving the circumstances rather than requiring Cerda to disprove them.
Chura’s death also carries a human significance beyond those legal disputes. Neighbors described him as a longtime merchant who was known throughout the area and helped people. “Everybody knew him. Everybody grew up with him,” one resident told ABC13. Chura’s reputation could explain why people visited him for assistance, but prosecutors cannot use community affection as a substitute for evidence. The jury, should the case reach trial, would be instructed to decide the charge from testimony and exhibits admitted in court.
The next phases may include appointment or confirmation of defense counsel, evidence exchanges, forensic review and hearings on any disputed statements or searches. No trial date has been reported, and the available sources do not show that a grand jury has returned an indictment separate from the filed charge. Cerda remained jailed following his arrest. Until the case is resolved by a plea, dismissal or verdict, the capital murder allegation remains unproved and Cerda retains the presumption of innocence.
Author note: Last updated July 13, 2026.