COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NOS. 02-10-00176-CR
02-10-00177-CR
02-10-00178-CR
JESSE THOMAS DICKSON APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
In a single issue, Jesse Thomas Dickson challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his three convictions for robbery by threats. We affirm.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Standard of Review
In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution 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 (1979); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d
772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).2
Applicable Facts
Abhishek Devkota, an employee of Allison’s Food Store on Isbell Road in
Fort Worth, testified that on August 1, 2009, a man wearing a plastic bag on his
head came into the store. The man showed Devkota a black gun that he was
holding under a newspaper, and he ordered Devkota to give him money. The
man said, “I have a gun, you better hand money to me or something won’t be
right.” Devkota gave the man “[e]verything [he] had on the counter.” The man
also took some cigarettes and Devkota’s cell phone. Devkota was scared and
feared for his life. Two or three days later, police showed Devkota a photo array;
2
Appellant challenges only the factual sufficiency of the evidence. But after
appellant filed his brief, the court of criminal appeals overruled cases that allowed
a factual sufficiency review and held that there is “no meaningful distinction
between the . . . legal-sufficiency standard and the . . . factual-sufficiency
standard.” Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Thus,
the Jackson standard is the “only standard that a reviewing court should apply in
determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a
criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
All other cases to the contrary . . . are overruled.” Id. at 912. Accordingly, we
apply the Jackson standard of review to appellant’s sufficiency issue.
2
he selected appellant’s picture from the array, saying that he was seventy to
eighty percent sure it was the person who had robbed him. Devkota could not
identify appellant at trial.
Phary Kun, the daughter of the owners of Clear Fork Liquor on River Oaks
Boulevard in Fort Worth, testified that on August 3, 2009, a man came into the
store wearing a white plastic grocery bag on his head; he ordered Kun to give
him all the store’s money. Kun noticed that the man had a gun and newspaper in
his left hand when he walked into the store. She could see that the gun was
black. Although the gun looked fake, she did not know what a real gun looked
like. The man was “just holding it and waving it around” in her direction. Kun
was scared for herself and her cousins, who were also in the store at the time.
The man saw two of the cousins looking at him and said, “Don’t look at me and
nobody will get hurt.” The cousins were scared as well. Kun testified that the
man was wearing a black shirt with red lettering on it. Kun gave the man a
handful of bills, and he left. She identified appellant at trial as the man who had
robbed her.
Say Krouch, the owner of Millennium Liquor on Jacksboro Highway in
Samson Park, testified that on August 6, 2009, a man with a bag on his head
came into his store, pulled out a black gun, pointed it at him, and ordered him to
put money from the cash register into a bag. The man said, “Don’t make me use
this gun.” Krouch gave the man about $300. Krouch tried to follow the man out,
but the man turned around and said, “Don’t look at me, don’t make me use this.”
3
Krouch was nervous and scared for his life. He identified appellant in a photo
array after the robbery and also at trial.
On August 7, 2009, River Oaks Police Officer Dusty Moren stopped a man
with the robber’s description walking in River Oaks. The man was nervous and
had a plastic bag with some clothing in it, including a dark shirt. Officer Moren
identified appellant in court as the man he stopped that day.
Sansom Park Officer Thomas Milner interviewed appellant that day in his
office at the police department. He noticed that appellant had a hole in the jeans
he was wearing that was in the same location as a hole in the jeans the robber in
the surveillance video at Millennium Liquor had been wearing. Additionally,
Officer Milner noticed a tattoo on appellant’s arm; the video showed something
white on the same part of the robber’s arm that appeared to be a bandage.
Appellant did not confess to Officer Milner, who let him go after the interview.
However, the next day, Detective David Hobbs from the Fort Worth Police
Department called Officer Milner and told him to check the trash can in his office.
Officer Milner found a plastic gun there.
After Officer Milner interviewed appellant, Fort Worth police subsequently
obtained an arrest warrant for appellant. Near where they found him, the police
also found a T-shirt and other clothing that appellant said belonged to him. The
T-shirt had red lettering on it and appeared to be the same shirt worn by the
robber during the Clear Fork robbery.
4
Detective Hobbs testified that he investigated the three robberies and
began to suspect appellant based on independent identifications by Devkota and
one of Kun’s cousins who witnessed the Clear Fork robbery as well as videotape
surveillance from the stores. Fort Worth police arrested appellant, and Detective
Hobbs read appellant his Miranda rights before interviewing him. Appellant
consented to the interview without the presence of an attorney and without
invoking his right to remain silent. Detective Hobbs recorded appellant’s
interview; the trial court admitted the interview without objection from appellant
and played it for the jury.
In the interview, appellant admitted taking $62.00 from the clerk at Allison’s
Food Store; however, in response to a false scenario proposed by Detective
Hobbs, appellant said he returned the money and that it was part of an insurance
fraud scheme with the clerk, who told appellant that he was the owner. Appellant
also admitted taking money in an unspecified amount from the clerk at Clear Fork
Liquor Store and from the Sansom Park store (Millennium). According to
appellant, he only committed the second and third robberies to call attention to
himself so that police would clear his girlfriend of a weapons charge she had
been convicted of; according to appellant, the gun she was charged with
possessing belonged to him, not her, and she was wrongfully convicted.
Appellant admitted using a toy pistol during the Clear Fork robbery.
According to Detective Hobbs, Allison’s reported that the robber stole
$190, and Clear Fork reported that the robber stole $730.
5
Additionally, the surveillance videotapes from each store were admitted
and viewed by the jury.
Analysis
Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient because there is no evidence
of a matching description or eyewitness account to prove his identity beyond a
reasonable doubt. Appellant claims that no witness could positively identify him
and that the image caught on the videotape, which the State alleged was him,
was unclear. He acknowledges that his confession was admitted but makes no
argument explaining why the confession would not be sufficient.
The elements of robbery by threats are that a person (1) in the course of
committing theft (2) with intent to obtain and maintain control of property (3)
intentionally or knowingly (4) threatens or places another in fear of imminent
bodily injury or death. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). Theft
is defined as the unlawful appropriation of property with intent to deprive the
owner of that property. Id. § 31.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010).
The jury was entitled to believe or disbelieve the identifications made at
trial by Kun and Krouch and to resolve whether the image on the surveillance
tapes was that of appellant. Moreover, appellant admitted that he took money at
all three stores even though he said that he did not intend to deprive the Allison’s
owner of property because he thought the clerk was the owner. The
eyewitnesses testified that appellant used what appeared to be a gun and
6
verbally threatened them, making them feel scared for their lives.3 Based on the
above, we conclude and hold that the evidence is sufficient to support all three
convictions.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 3, 2011
3
One of the officers testified that from a side angle, the gun was
indistinguishable from a real weapon.
7