In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00030-CR
CHARLES FRANCIS WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30,023
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The clear surveillance video recording at Sharyland Utilities in Hunt County depicts two
white males working together to steal personal property from Sharyland’s premises before they
tripped an alarm. One of the men, later identified as Charles Francis Williams, wore a light blue
shirt sporting two crossed oars and the words “E. Coast … Club Coastal Rowing Team” and was
seen carrying bolt cutters. The other man, later identified as Francis Andrew Stankiewicz, wore a
dark blue shirt and can be seen on the video loading spools of copper wire onto a meter truck,
described as a “2011, half-ton, GMC, 4-wheel drive” bearing Sharyland identification on both
doors. On the video, one can see the two men scramble, once the alarm goes off, with the man in
the light blue shirt approaching Sharyland’s meter truck, standing by as his associate in the dark
blue shirt gets in, closing the door to the meter truck, and running out of the scene carrying bolt
cutters as the associate drives the meter truck away.
Unfortunately for the pair of thieves, the meter truck was equipped with a GPS tracking
device, allowing law enforcement officers to track the truck to property owned by Katie Brown,
where authorities found Williams, Stankiewicz, a Ford Ranger truck owned by a relative of
Stankiewicz, and ultimately the Sharyland truck. Inside the Ford truck were found two pairs of
bolt cutters, other tools, and the light blue shirt. The missing copper wire, never recovered, was
valued at an estimated $180.00.
2
Williams was convicted by a jury of theft of copper wire having a value of less than
$20,000.00.1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(F)(iii) (West Supp. 2015). Williams pled
“true” to three of the State’s enhancement allegations and was sentenced to ten years’
imprisonment. On appeal, Williams argues that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support
his conviction, essentially because he was not found in possession of the stolen copper. Because
we find that Williams’ conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence that he was a party
to the theft, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In reviewing the record for the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury
could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d). We
review for legal sufficiency of the evidence under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving
deference to the responsibility of the jury “to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State,
214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19); Clayton v. State,
235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by
a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
1
In a companion case, Williams was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle, which he appeals in our cause number
06-15-00031-CR and which we decide today in a separate opinion.
3
The “hypothetically correct” jury charge is “one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by
the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict
the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the
defendant was tried.” Id. at 240.
Pursuant to its indictment, the State was required to prove that (1) Williams, individually
or acting together with Stankiewicz, (2) appropriated copper wire (3) valued at less than
$20,000.00 (4) without the effective consent of owner Jerry Ervin, an employee of Sharyland,
(5) with intent to deprive Ervin of the copper wire. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West
Supp. 2015).
As mentioned above, the surveillance video recording is of good quality. The video shows
the two men approaching a Sharyland meter truck and service truck with tools in hand. Both men
begin canvassing the area for items to take. The men pluck items from the service truck and place
the stolen goods into the meter truck, a “2011, half-ton, GMC, 4-wheel drive” with “Sharyland
stickers on both side on the doors.” The man wearing the dark blue shirt loads several spools of
copper wire into the meter truck. According to Ervin’s testimony, the disturbance triggered
Sharyland’s alarm systems. On video, the men are seen scrambling in an effort to escape. The
man wearing the dark blue shirt drives off in the meter truck. As his accomplice drives away, the
man in the light blue shirt runs off camera while carrying bolt cutters.
As Ervin approached the scene of the theft, he discovered that the chain-link fence had
been cut and that the thieves had stolen three rolls of copper wire, “bolt biters,” and the meter
truck. Ervin called the police and started tracking the meter truck, through use of its GPS tracking
4
system. Henry Potts, a deputy with the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office, obtained the meter truck’s
location from Ervin and informed Trooper Kent E. Layton and Deputy Ricardo Valenzuela of the
address where the meter truck had stopped.
According to the GPS tracking device, the meter truck was located on property belonging
to Brown. Layton and Valenzuela spotted a “[m]aroon, purplish” Ford Ranger truck in front of
Brown’s home, but did not see the meter truck. They knocked on Brown’s door and, after several
minutes of questioning Brown, discovered that two white males, Stankiewicz and Williams, were
inside. Layton and Valenzuela reported their discovery to Potts, who asked them to photograph
the two male suspects. After comparing the photographs of Stankiewicz and Williams to the
suspects on the surveillance video, Potts believed that Layton and Valenzuela had captured the
thieves. Potts arrived at Brown’s home and began questioning her. According to Potts, Brown
stated that Williams and Stankiewicz arrived at her house at the same time, that Williams was
driving the Ford Ranger, and that Stankiewicz was driving a stolen meter truck. At trial, Brown
testified that Williams arrived at her home hours before Stankiewicz arrived in the stolen utility
truck. After finding the stolen meter truck on Brown’s property, officers arrested Stankiewicz and
Williams.
Following their arrest, Stankiewicz and Williams were both interviewed by Investigator
Kelly Phillips. Phillips testified that she had met Williams before on many occasions and
positively identified him as one of the thieves depicted on the surveillance video. During the
interview, Williams admitted that he had arrived with Stankiewicz at Brown’s house, but declined
to speak further. Williams had the keys to the Ford Ranger, which was registered to one of
5
Stankiewicz’s relatives. Valenzuela recognized the Ford Ranger because he had stopped the
vehicle on the night before the theft and testified that it was being driven by Stankiewicz at that
time. A search of the Ford Ranger revealed bolt cutters, other tools, and the light blue shirt, which
both Phillips and Valenzuela recognized as the shirt worn by one of the thieves in the surveillance
video.
The surveillance footage in this case shows two thieves working together to steal items
from Sharyland. The thief wearing the light blue shirt fled Sharyland while carrying a pair of bolt
cutters. The thief’s shirt and the bolt cutters were both found in the Ford Ranger that Williams
drove to Brown’s house. Phillips, Valenzuela, and Potts all testified that they believed Williams
was the person depicted on the surveillance footage. The jury was also in a position to conduct its
own comparison of Williams to the man shown on camera. We find that the evidence was legally
sufficient to establish that Williams was one of the perpetrators of the Sharyland theft.
Yet, Williams argues that the evidence is legally insufficient because he “was not seen to
be in direct possession of the copper wire.” Williams was charged individually and as a party to
the offense. “A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed
by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.”
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 7.01(a) (West 2011). A “person is criminally responsible for an offense
committed by the conduct of another if . . . acting with intent to promote or assist the commission
of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit
the offense.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 7.02(a)(2) (West 2011). “Each party to an offense may
be charged with commission of the offense.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 7.01(b) (West 2011). The
6
surveillance footage demonstrated that Williams was an active participant in the theft. Because
Williams was charged as a party to the theft of the copper wire, which was clearly shown being
carried away by his accomplice, we conclude that the jury’s verdict of guilt was supported by
legally sufficient evidence.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: November 10, 2015
Date Decided: December 1, 2015
Do Not Publish
7