Opinion
No. 01-05-01131-CR
Opinion issued: March 15, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas; Trial Court Cause No. 1017950.
Panel F: Consists of Justices, NUCHIA, KEYES, and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Walter Clifford Beck was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). Appellant pleaded true to an enhancement for a previous conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance and not true to an enhancement for a previous conviction for robbery, which the jury later found true. The jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for 65 years. Appellant brings five points of error, challenging the admissibility of his confession (point one) and the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence (points of error two, three, four, and five). We affirm. Appellant told the jury that he came to the victim's apartment to buy marihuana, not to rob the victim. While there, appellant testified that two men entered and began shooting. Appellant testified that he was able to escape, but only after being shot in the leg. He then went to a grocery story, where he was shot in the abdomen. Appellant received medical attention for these gunshot wounds, but was arrested for robbery several days later when he returned to the hospital to have a stint removed. In point of error one, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion to suppress the evidence of his confession during a custodial interrogation. Appellant testified during the suppression hearing that while he told the police during his interrogation that he participated in the robbery, this confession was untrue and was given (1) to protect his family and (2) because he needed continued medical attention for his gunshot wound. On appeal, appellant contends the confession was involuntary because the police allegedly withheld continued medical attention for appellant's gunshot wound, thus violating his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. When reviewing a motion to suppress, the appellate court must give great deference to the trial court's findings of facts. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Mixed questions of law and fact that do not turn on an evaluation of a witness's credibility and demeanor are reviewed de novo. Id. The appellate court should sustain the trial court's ruling admitting the evidence if the ruling is reasonably supported by the record and correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). During the suppression hearing, appellant never claimed that the police officers explicitly threatened to withhold continued medical treatment. Instead, appellant testified that he "felt like they weren't going to get me no medical attention" and "they manipulated a situation." Houston Police Officer Mark Newcomb testified at the hearing that he consulted with the medical staff at Hermann Hospital to ensure appellant would have no need for immediate medical attention if appellant was arrested. Based on appellant's and Officer Newcomb's testimony, the trial court had a reasonable basis to find that the police did not withhold continued medical attention. The trial court's ruling is reasonably supported by the record, and the confession is consistent with the State's legal theory of the case. See Willover, 70 S.W.3d at 845. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's motion to suppress his confession. We overrule point of error one. In points of error two, three, four, and five, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that he — either as a principal (points two and three) or as a party (points four and five) — ever obtained or maintained control of the $600.00 in rent money that was taken from the victim's apartment. Appellant specifically claims that the evidence is insufficient because there was no evidence at trial that the $600.00 was owned by the victim, as opposed to the other people living in the apartment who contributed to the rent. The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, 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, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89 (1979). The standard for reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). The definition of the offense of robbery incorporates the elements of theft. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02(a) (Vernon 2003). A person commits theft if he "unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property." Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The Penal Code defines "owner" to mean a person who "has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the actor." Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(35) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The victim testified at trial that the stolen $600.00 was in the top drawer of a bedroom dresser in his apartment. No contrary evidence was admitted. The victim's testimony is evidence that is both legally and factually sufficient to show the victim had a greater right to possession to the $600.00 than appellant, thus establishing the victim as the owner of the $600.00. Accordingly, we overrule points of error two, three, four, and five. We affirm the judgment of conviction.