In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00458-CR
____________________
ISAAC LAMAR THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 410th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-02-01613-CR
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Isaac Lamar Thomas appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery
with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Thomas to twenty-five years in
prison.
Thomas argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his
conviction, and that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing attorney fees
against him. We modify the judgment to delete the assessment of attorney fees
against Thomas and affirm the judgment as modified.
1
The conviction for aggravated robbery in this case required the State to
prove that the accused (1) unlawfully appropriated property with the intent to
deprive the owner of the property, (2) intentionally or knowingly threatened or
placed another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and (3) used or exhibited
a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2012) (Theft);
§ 29.02(a)(2) (West 2011) (Robbery); § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011) (aggravated
robbery); see also Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 916 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d). The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant is the person who committed the charged offense. See Bradley, 359
S.W.3d at 916. Thomas argues the evidence is legally insufficient to establish he is
the person who committed the offense. He points out that no DNA or fingerprint
evidence from the scene and no evidence recovered from either of the vehicles
connected him to the crime.
The record establishes that two men entered the complainant’s residence,
restrained him, assaulted him, stole items from the home, threatened his life, and
then drove away. The complainant testified that during the robbery Thomas told
him that “this isn’t personal[,]” and that Thomas and the other man wanted to settle
a score with the complainant’s brother. The complainant’s brother testified that
Thomas had been to the residence twice before---one time right before the robbery.
2
The brother testified that a drug deal he had with Thomas had “gone bad[.]” The
brother named Thomas as a potential suspect.
The complainant testified he saw Thomas up close during the aggravated
robbery and later identified him in a photographic lineup and again at trial as one
of the two men who robbed him. The complainant also testified that Thomas had a
gun during the robbery. The complainant identified the gun at trial as the gun that
Thomas had during the robbery, and the gun which Thomas left at complainant’s
residence. The complainant testified that the intruders beat him, and that Thomas
struck him in the face, handcuffed his hands behind his back, and tied his legs with
a belt. Thomas took various items from the residence.
In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court
considers the entire record in the light most favorable to the verdict and determines
whether, based on the record, any rational trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty of all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Testimony of a single eyewitness can be enough to support a conviction. Aguilar v.
State, 468 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). The jury may find guilt without
physical evidence linking the accused to the crime. See Bradley, 359 S.W.3d at
3
917; Johnson v. State, 176 S.W.3d 74, 75-77 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2004, pet. ref’d). As the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, the jury
believed the complainant when he identified Thomas as the one who committed
the aggravated robbery. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010); Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236-37 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
The complainant had time to observe Thomas during the robbery. The
complainant testified he could clearly see the faces of the two men. “[W]hen they
were pointing the guns at me, like right at my face, I was looking at their face,
trying to see what kind of expression they had, how they -- how serious they were.
And I pretty much, like, memorized their face.” Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to
support the complainant’s identification of Thomas as one of the men who robbed
him and to support Thomas’s conviction for aggravated robbery. We overrule issue
one.
In issue two, Thomas argues the trial court abused its discretion in assessing
attorney fees against him, because he is indigent. The State argues that the record
does not establish Thomas is indigent, and he is not entitled to appointed counsel
without payment.
4
Under article 26.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court has
authority to order reimbursement of fees of an appointed attorney if the court
determines that the defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in
part or in whole the costs of legal services provided to him. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012). Article 26.04 provides that the judges of the
district courts trying criminal cases by local rule shall adopt and publish written
countywide procedures for timely and fairly appointing counsel for an indigent
defendant in the county, who is arrested for, charged with, or taking an appeal from
a conviction of a misdemeanor or a felony. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04
(West Supp. 2012). The record includes an order appointing the counsel who
represented Thomas at the trial of the case, and the same “appointment designee”
appointed an attorney for Thomas on appeal. See Mayer v. State, 274 S.W.3d 898,
901 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008), aff’d, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010);
Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.) (If a
court determines that a defendant is indigent, then he is presumed to remain
indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change
in the defendant’s financial circumstances occurs.).
The sum of $8,500 in attorney fees was taxed against Thomas in the
judgment. There is no evidence in the record that Thomas’s financial
5
circumstances materially changed since the appointment of counsel before the trial
of the case, and the appointment of appellate counsel for appeal of the case. See
generally Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); In re Daniel,
396 S.W.3d 545, 547-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We sustain issue two and modify
the judgment to delete the portion requiring that Thomas pay attorney fees in the
amount of $8,500. The judgment is affirmed as modified.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
______________________________
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on June 27, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 18, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
6