IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00356-CR
Chontail Evette Green,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 28343CR
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Chontail Green was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated robbery. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). She was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. She brings one issue on appeal, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We will overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
A loss prevention officer at the Wal-Mart store in Ennis, Texas, testified that she observed Green in the store. Green had a DVD player and a home theater system in her shopping cart and two empty Wal-Mart bags. The loss prevention officer watched Green put merchandise into the bags, pass the cash registers, and leave the store with the items. She followed Green to a car in the parking lot. An assistant manager assisted the loss prevention officer in attempting to apprehend Green. Green initially agreed to go back into the store with the manager and officer, but instead she grabbed the car keys from her male companion and ran back to the vehicle. When the Wal-Mart employees tried to stop her, she backed up the car, hitting both employees, another vehicle, and a row of shopping carts. Both the assistant manager and the loss prevention officer positively identified Green as the woman they encountered. A police officer dispatched to the scene seized a purse from Green’s male companion containing envelopes addressed to and from Chontail Green. The prosecution played an in-store video tape, edited to include only scenes allegedly depicting Green.
Although she does not specify, Green appears to argue both legal and factual insufficiency. We review legal sufficiency by viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). We review factual sufficiency by considering all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Green argues that the evidence shows that she was not the person in the videotape or the person in the events described by the State’s witnesses. She argues that the purse contained the driver’s license of Tammy Green, Chontail’s sister. Tammy Green testified in Chontail’s defense, and testified that the person in the videotape was not Chontail Green. However, she also testified that the purse was not her own. Chontail Green’s mother and friend also testified that the person in the video was not Chontail Green.
However, two witnesses identified Green as the person who committed the offense. The loss prevention officer testified that Green’s male companion in the parking lot called her “Chontail.” The purse contained envelopes addressed to and from Chontail Green. The jury was able to watch the videotape and determine for themselves whether the woman depicted was Green. The jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Green committed the offense. Finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict, we overrule the issue.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled the issue, we affirm the judgment.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 25, 2005
Do not publish
[CR25]