ACCEPTED
01-15-00483-CR
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
11/3/2015 3:35:52 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
No. 01-15-00483-CR CLERK
In the
Court of Appeals
For the
FILED IN
First District of Texas 1st COURT OF APPEALS
At Houston HOUSTON, TEXAS
11/3/2015 3:35:52 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
No. 1439664 Clerk
In the 182nd District Court
Of Harris County, Texas
WILLIE MCDOWELL
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF
DEVON ANDERSON
District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
DAN MCCRORY
Assistant District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
mccrory_daniel@dao.hctx.net
ANDREA HANDLEY
AMANDA PETROFF
Assistant District Attorneys
Harris County, Texas
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel.: 713/274-5826
FAX No.: 713/755-5809
Counsel for Appellee
ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 39.7, the State waives oral argument.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................................i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 1
REPLY TO POINT OF ERROR ONE ....................................................................... 2
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................... 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 7
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Anderson v. State,
416 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ................................................................3
Bradley v. State,
359 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) ............ 3, 4, 5
Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ................................................................3
Callahan v. State,
502 S.W.2d 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ....................................................................5
Clayton v. State,
235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ................................................................4
Gear v. State,
340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ................................................................2
Griego v. State,
337 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ................................................................3
Harmon v. State,
167 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) .....................3
Herrero v. State,
124 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) .........................4
Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307 (1979) ...............................................................................................2
Laster v. State,
275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)................................................................3
Madden v. State,
799 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ................................................................2
iii
Sharp v. State,
707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ................................................................4
RULES
TEX. R. APP. P. 39.7 .................................................................................................... i
iv
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated
robbery. (CR 8). After the jury found appellant guilty of the charged offense, the
trial judge assessed punishment at 35-years confinement. (CR 237).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The complainant, Itashia Corbin, was at home with her one-year-old
daughter when she answered a knock at her front door. (RR III 19-22, 51). Once
she opened the door, appellant and another man “bum rushed” into her home. (RR
III 22-24). Both men were carrying guns. (RR III 23). Appellant held the
complainant at gunpoint while his partner went “through the house” and gathered
items such as an Xbox, shoes, and cash. (RR III 25-26). After “they grabbed what
they could,” appellant and his accomplice left with the loot. (RR III 26-27). The
complainant chased appellant, prompting him to fire his gun in the air. (RR III 27).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Since the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a
conviction and the complainant’s testimony establishes each element of the
charged offense, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction.
Furthermore, any inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony do not undermine
the sufficiency of the evidence because the jury is presumed to have resolved any
inconsistencies in favor of the verdict.
REPLY TO POINT OF ERROR ONE
In his sole point of error, appellant contends the trial judge erred by denying
his motion for an instructed verdict. (RR III 202). Appellant argues he was entitled
to an instructed verdict because the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for aggravated robbery. Regarding his insufficiency claim, appellant
maintains the complainant was not credible due to inconsistencies in her testimony.
A challenge to a trial judge’s ruling on a motion for an instructed for verdict
is actually a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). In determining
whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court must
consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine
whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational
factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Gear v. State,
340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This standard gives full play to the
responsibility of the factfinder to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.
Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). When the record
2
supports conflicting inferences, the reviewing court presumes the jury resolved the
conflicts in favor of the State and defers to that determination. Anderson v. State,
416 S.W.3d 884, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). This standard applies equally to
circumstantial and direct evidence. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517-18 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009).1
The complainant testified that appellant forced his way into her home and
held a gun on her, causing her to fear death, while appellant’s accomplice stole her
property. (RR III 19-26). She stated she was positive that appellant is “the man
that came into [her] home and took [her] property and held [her] at gunpoint.” (RR
III 77). The complainant’s testimony establishes all of the elements of the offense
as alleged in the indictment. (CR 9).
A robbery victim’s testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to support a
conviction. Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 918 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th
Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d); Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.--
Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). Therefore, the complainant’s testimony,
which alone proves the alleged offense, is sufficient to support appellant’s
conviction. Id.
1
Appellant asks this Court to conduct a legal and factual sufficiency review, employing
different standards for the two proposed analyses. (appellant’s brief, pp. 9-10). It is well settled,
however, that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard that an appellate court should
apply in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. Griego v. State, 337 S.W.3d 902, 903
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).
3
Furthermore, the complainant’s identification of appellant as the robber was
corroborated by Shavondia Smith, who testified that, on the day of the robbery,
appellant had custody of her Explorer, which is the vehicle in which the robber
loaded the stolen items and attempted to flee after his commission of the offense.
(RR III 30-31, 35-38, 87-92, 118-119, 127-129). Such corroboration further
strengthens the sufficiency of the evidence.
Nevertheless, appellant argues the complainant was not credible because of
certain inconsistencies in her testimony. This claim fails to alter the outcome of
the sufficiency review because inconsistencies in testimony do not render the
evidence insufficient. Herrero v. State, 124 S.W.3d 827, 833 (Tex. App.--Houston
[14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Regarding inconsistent testimony, the jury was entitled
to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony. Id. As the sole factfinder, the jury was authorized to believe or
disbelieve any portion of any witness’s testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611,
614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). It is the jury’s duty to resolve any conflicts in the
testimony. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Bradley,
359 S.W.3d at 917. Any inconsistencies in the testimony should be resolved in
favor of the jury’s verdict in a sufficiency review. Herrero, 124 S.W.3d at 833.
Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction despite any
inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. Id.
4
Appellant also suggests the evidence is insufficient because his fingerprints
were not found on the gun he used during the robbery or on the Explorer he
attempted to operate after the robbery. (RR III 183-186). The lack of fingerprints
on the gun is not compelling because the investigating officer testified that the
gun’s variant texture was not conducive to holding a fingerprint. (RR III 185-187).
Regarding the Explorer, the officer testified that it is “very rare” to discover
fingerprints at a crime scene. (RR III 183). Therefore, the absence of fingerprints
does not raise a reasonable doubt about appellant’s guilt. Callahan v. State, 502
S.W.2d 3, 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (evidence sufficient to support burglary
conviction despite lack of fingerprint evidence); Bradley, 359 S.W.3d at 917 (jury
may find guilt without physical evidence linking the accused to the crime).
Accordingly, despite appellant’s claims, the complainant’s testimony,
standing alone, remains sufficient to support appellant’s conviction. Point of error
one is meritless and should be overruled.
5
CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that all things are regular and the conviction
should be affirmed.
DEVON ANDERSON
District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
/s/ Dan McCrory
DAN McCRORY
Assistant District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 274-5826
TBC No. 13489950
mccrory_daniel@dao.hctx.net
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to the
following email address via TexFile:
Hattie Sewell Shannon
Attorney at Law
Hattieshannon52@yahoo.com
/s/ Dan McCrory
DAN McCRORY
Assistant District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 274-5826
TBC No. 13489950
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned attorney certifies that this computer-generated document
has a word count of 995 words, based upon the representation provided by the
word processing program that was used to create the document.
/s/ Dan McCrory
DAN McCRORY
Assistant District Attorney
Harris County, Texas
1201 Franklin, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 274-5826
TBC No. 13489950
Date: 11/3/2015
7
Willie McDowell v. State
Combined Opinion