11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Pedro Castillo, Jr.
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-03-00181-CR -- Appeal from Howard County
State of Texas
Appellee
Pedro Castillo, Jr. appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of murder. The jury assessed his punishment at 22 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Castillo=s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and has accompanied his motion with a frivolous appeal brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42 (1967). We affirm. Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
In his brief, counsel concludes, after a professional and conscientious examination and evaluation of the record, that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel details the record, discusses the facts and the law, and makes appropriate record references.
Castillo=s attorney raises only one arguable point: that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because there is no evidence other than accomplice testimony that Castillo struck the victim with any object capable of causing death and that there is no evidence establishing that Castillo=s striking the victim with his hands and feet either caused, was capable of causing, or was intended to cause the victim=s death. Castillo has filed a pro se brief in which he presents no issues or points on appeal, merely repeating his statement as to what occurred at the time of the murder. In a legal sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and then determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). In a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light; and we will set the verdict aside only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or if the contrary evidence is so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484-85 (Tex.Cr.App.2004).
As required by Anders and its progeny, we have conducted an independent examination of the proceedings. The record reflects that Castillo was tried for the murder along with two brothers, Terrell Lee Jackman and Michael Scott Jackman. Evidence showed that the deceased, Lennon Everett Lane, died due to massive blunt force injuries after having been beaten severely. Castillo and Michael both admitted participating in some way in the beating. Castillo sought to show that Terrell was the one who did most of the beating, while Terrell and Michael had Castillo doing most of the beating.
No question is presented as to whether the evidence is sufficient if the accomplice witnesses= testimony is taken into consideration. Castillo=s counsel only contends that the evidence might not be sufficient due to inadequate corroboration of the accomplice testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 38.14 (Vernon 2005) requires that, before a conviction can be obtained based upon the testimony of an accomplice witness, there must be some corroborating testimony that tends to connect the defendant with the offense. To test the sufficiency of the corroborating testimony, we must eliminate from consideration the evidence of the accomplice witness and then examine the evidence of the other witnesses to ascertain if it is of an incriminating character that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. If there is such evidence, the corroboration is sufficient. Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). The corroborative testimony need not directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish guilt. Id.
Castillo acknowledged in a written statement that he was present and participated in the beating of the deceased. In his statement, Castillo admitted that he and the deceased were talking about things that the deceased was saying about him and that they got involved in a brief fist fight. While ascribing most of the beating to Terrell, Castillo said that, after a threat from Terrell, he and Michael kicked and hit the deceased for awhile until they thought they saw a police officer.
Jimmy Johnson, Castillo=s brother-in-law, testified that the day after the beating Castillo told him that he was Arunning from the cops.@ He admitted to Johnson that they Amessed up somebody.@ According to Johnson, when he asked Castillo if they had put the victim in the hospital, Castillo told him, ANo. He didn=t make it.@ Johnson indicated that Castillo told him that he had fought the deceased, hitting him four times. Johnson stated that Castillo told him that later he, Terrell, and Michael all got on the deceased.
Irene Castillo, Pedro=s sister, testified that the day after the beating Castillo told her that he, Michael, and Terrell had messed up. She also recalled Pedro saying that Athey had hit@ the deceased and had hit him again when he got back up.
Tommy Rodriguez, who was with Castillo at the juvenile detention center in Midland, testified concerning statements Castillo had made to him about the beating. He said that Castillo told Terrell on the evening of the beating that he was going to get the deceased for saying bad things about him. According to Rodriguez, Castillo also told Terrell that the deceased was messing with his (Castillo=s) girlfriend. Rodriguez related that later Castillo told Terrell that he was going to do something to the deceased and then he pushed the deceased and started hitting him in the face. Rodriguez stated that Castillo told him he punched the deceased in the face a couple of times. Rodriguez said that Castillo told him that he wanted the deceased to stay with the group, rather than going home, so that he could do more to him, beat him up some more.
Rodriguez testified that Castillo told him that he went to the side of the house where they were, got a pole, and hit the deceased with it a couple of times. He recounted that Castillo said he knocked the deceased to the ground, hitting him with the pole on the side of his head and the side of his rib cage. Rodriguez indicated that Castillo told him that he got a hammer from under the sink and hit the deceased on the back of his head and then he hit the deceased several times on the back after the deceased went down. After the beating, a hammer with the deceased=s blood was recovered from Castillo=s bedroom. Rodriguez insisted that, according to Castillo, Terrell, and Michael, both tried to stop him on several occasions and that Castillo threatened them.
Because the non-accomplice testimony is of an incriminating character that tends to connect Castillo with the offense, we find that the accomplice testimony is corroborated as required by Article 38.14. Consequently, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support Castillo=s conviction.
This court has previously granted counsel=s motion to withdraw; that action was premature. The order granting the motion to withdraw is set aside; and, upon timely reconsideration, the motion to withdraw is now granted.
After making our independent review of the proceedings, we determine that the possible point raised by counsel is not an arguable point to present on appeal and that this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet=n). Counsel has complied with Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, supra; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Gainous v. State, supra; and Eaden v. State, supra.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
August 18, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, J., and
McCall, J., and Hill J.[1]
[1]John G. Hill, Former Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth sitting by assignment.