In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-15-00359-CR
________________________
DESHAUN MEDLOCK, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-446-C2; Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding
July 27, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Deshaun Medlock, was convicted by a
jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to sixty years confinement.1 By a sole issue,
he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction given his cousin’s
(Edward Hancox) multiple confessions to family members and to the police. We affirm.
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(3)(A) (West 2011). An offense under this section is a felony
of the first degree. Id. at § 29.03(b).
BACKGROUND
The victim was sixty-seven years old at the time of the robbery. She is an
illiterate widow who does not speak English. She lives in a trailer in a small town and
works at a nursing home nearby. When her husband was alive, he would help her
endorse her paychecks and cash them for her. They did not have a bank account and
she carried her earnings in a black purse. She kept her purse in a suitcase under her
bed. After the victim’s husband died, the victim enlisted a co-worker, who happened to
be Appellant’s mother, to help her cash her paychecks.
Appellant, whom the victim had known for about fifteen years, and his brother did
yard work for the victim and she would pay them from her purse filled with cash. Late in
the evening on November 20, 2012, the victim observed Appellant pacing in the alley.
His demeanor gave her pause. Shortly thereafter, he broke into her trailer and
demanded to know where she kept her money. After she was severely beaten, she
indicated the money was in her bedroom. Appellant found the purse in the suitcase
under the bed and grabbed some cash and fled.2
The victim’s neighbors called 911 when they heard loud noises and screams
coming from the trailer and saw the lights flicker on and off. They observed a figure at
the victim’s window move the curtains but could not identify the figure in the dark.
According to one of the neighbors, the suspect was wearing gloves, dark clothing, and a
hooded sweatshirt. She saw the suspect exit the trailer and run down the alley.
2
The evidence established that she had approximately $27,000 in cash in her purse before the
robbery and that Appellant stole $7,500.
2
After the robbery, the victim stumbled outside bloodied and beaten. Her
neighbor came to her assistance as police were arriving. The victim immediately
identified Appellant by his nickname to the responding officer as the person who had
beaten and robbed her. Officers secured the crime scene and began a search for
Appellant at different locations.
At Appellant’s residence, his wife identified the van that he was driving and
officers located that van at Appellant’s grandmother’s home where his aunt, Billie
Hancox, also resided with Appellant’s cousin, Edward Hancox. When officers arrived,
they were met by hostile occupants, including Edward, who claimed that Appellant was
not there. For safety reasons, the occupants were handcuffed and detained outside the
residence. Billie, who had been asleep, was awakened by the commotion. She was
cooperative and gave officers consent to have the home searched. Appellant was
found pretending to be asleep in one of the bedrooms. He was arrested and placed in a
patrol car. Officers then received consent to search the house for evidence. They
recovered articles of clothing that matched the description from the victim and her
neighbors and also found $7,500 under the mattress where Appellant had been laying.
Months after Appellant’s arrest, Edward Hancox went to police and gave a
statement indicating he was the one who had robbed and beaten the victim. Hancox’s
statement was found to be unreliable and the case proceeded against Appellant.
APPLICABLE LAW
A person commits robbery if in the course of committing theft and with intent to
obtain or maintain control of the property, he (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
3
causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a)
(West 2011). The offense becomes aggravated if the person causes bodily injury to
another person sixty-five years of age or older. Id. at § 29.03(a)(3)(A). Bodily injury is
defined as “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” Id. at §
1.07(8) (West Supp. 2016).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the
evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense the State is required
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 33 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,
912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to
support a conviction, this court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the verdict and determines whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences
to be drawn therefrom, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013); Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). As a
reviewing court, we must defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations
because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given
their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899.
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
essential elements of aggravated robbery of a person sixty-five years of age or older.
4
Rather, he disputes identity by arguing that “no rational factfinder could have found that
[he], not Hancox, committed this crime.” In other words, Appellant maintains a rational
jury should have had reasonable doubt that he committed the offense.
In criminal cases, the identity of the criminal actor is an “elemental fact.”
Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 405, 412 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing
Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). Identity may be
proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. However, the testimony of a single
eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction. Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 917
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d
75, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). A victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to support a
conviction even without physical evidence linking the accused to the crime. Harmon v.
State, 167 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (finding
that eyewitness identification without DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, a weapon, or
cash does not render the evidence insufficient to support a conviction). The jury alone
decides whether to believe eyewitness testimony, and the jury alone resolves any
conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 254
(Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
The victim testified that she had known Appellant for fifteen years and she had
never seen Edward Hancox. When police arrived in response to the 911 call, the victim
immediately identified Appellant as the person who had robbed and assaulted her.
Additionally, although Appellant’s wife attempted to provide him with an alibi by
testifying that at the time of the robbery, he was home with her, doubt was cast on her
5
testimony by Appellant’s cell phone records. Appellant’s wife testified that she could not
recall Appellant receiving any calls while he was home with her but expert testimony
established that multiple calls were made to Appellant’s cell phone during the critical
time frame. The jury was free to disbelieve Appellant’s wife’s alibi testimony. See
Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex. 2006) (noting that a fact finder may choose
not to believe a defendant’s mother’s alibi testimony; “[s]he is after all, the defendant’s
mother.”).
Appellant’s defense at trial, which mirrors his argument on appeal, was that
Hancox, whom he bears a resemblance to, committed the crime. Hancox made a
written statement confessing to the offense five months after the offense. His
confession, however, was debunked by an investigator who interviewed him. Critical
inconsistencies between the details of the robbery and Hancox’s confession were
revealed. Specifically, Hancox’s confession included an incorrect date and time of the
offense. He also confessed that he “busted” his way in by using his right shoulder on
the door when in fact, the door opened outward. He claimed that he found the victim in
bed with her “head facing the west and feet to the east.”3 The victim testified she was
not lying down and the investigator testified that her bed faced north and south, not east
and west. He confessed to pushing and shoving the victim “down” while the extent of
her injuries would have required more force. Finally, Hancox claimed he found the
money in a “suitcase in a white grocery bag.” The evidence showed that the cash was
in the victim’s black purse inside a suitcase under her bed. A grocery bag was never
part of the investigation.
3
The investigator noted that Hancox’s description was unusual and more akin to how law
enforcement would describe the scene.
6
Furthermore, during his interview with the investigator, Hancox did not remain
consistent with his confession. While testifying, the investigator was asked if Hancox
was trying to get Appellant “off,” to which he replied, “that’s exactly what [Hancox] said.”
Eventually, prior to trial, Hancox recanted his confession and claimed that an unknown
third party had committed the offense. After interviewing Hancox, the investigator found
the confession to be unreliable.
Based on the victim’s immediate identification of Appellant, Hancox’s debunked
confession, and the rejection by the jury of Appellant’s wife’s alibi testimony, we
conclude the jury’s verdict was not irrational. The jury was the sole judge of the
witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony and we will not disturb
the verdict. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.
MOTION TO W ITHDRAW
Pending before this court is retained counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel in
which he represents that he has received consent to withdraw. By order of the court,
the motion is conditionally granted upon expiration of the time in which to file a motion
for rehearing, should Appellant desire to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and retained counsel’s motion to withdraw
is conditionally granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
7