No. 05-10-00488-CR
Opinion Filed April 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 058504.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and FILLMORE.
Opinion By Justice RICHTER.
A jury convicted Randall Joseph Dawson of robbery and assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. In a single point of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
Evidence Presented
At about 8:00 p.m. on March 3, 2009, LaKindra Runnels, a night manager at Sav-A-Lot in Sherman, received a white envelope from a cashier. The employee said a man told the employee to deliver it to the manager. Runnels testified the envelope contained a note that looked like a child's party invitation. The note said there were two explosive devices inside Sav-A-Lot. It instructed her to put money from the safe into a bag and take the bag to a dumpster located behind a nearby store. The note said she would find the first device in the men's restroom, and that all of the doors were being watched and lines were being scanned for any communication with the police. After reading the note, Runnels got a male employee to accompany her to the men's restroom at the back of Sav-A-Lot. When they opened the door, they saw a device behind the toilet. Using the intercom, Runnels directed everyone to leave Sav-A-Lot immediately. Runnels locked all of the money in the safe and left Sav-A-Lot. When the police arrived, they evacuated the area, brought the device outside, and detonated it in the parking lot. Runnels testified she had seen appellant in Sav-A-Lot one hour before she was handed the note. Crisoforo Zamora testified he was at Sav-A-Lot with his niece on March 3, 2009. As he put groceries in the back of their vehicle, a man, who was sitting in a truck next to Zamora, said in English, "[I] need a favor. Can you help me?" Zamora identified appellant as the man who handed him a white envelope and a $5-bill. Appellant asked Zamora to take the envelope into Sav-A-Lot and give it to the manager. Zamora took the envelope and the five dollars, went into Sav-A-Lot, and gave the envelope to a cashier. When he returned to his niece's vehicle, appellant was no longer there. The next day, Zamora's niece heard the news about the bomb threat and told Zamora about it. Zamora contacted the police immediately. Zamora testified he understood English enough to know what appellant had said to him, but he cannot write in English. Sherman police detective Riley Day read the bomb threat note to the jury and testified none of the officers knew the device found in Sav-A-Lot's men's restroom was a hoax bomb. Officers used a bomb-sniffing dog to search for a second device, but none was found. After detonating the device, officers recovered a keypad, leather case, and red and black electrical tape from the cell phone that had been attached to the device. Day testified the daytime store manager mentioned appellant's name as a potential suspect because appellant's employment had been recently terminated. Day obtained the surveillance tapes from Sav-A-Lot's cameras and samples of appellant's handwriting. Day executed search warrants on appellant's truck and apartment. He recovered black electrical tape from the truck and two cell phones from the apartment. Appellant was arrested on March 6, 2009 and interviewed by Day. During the interview, appellant said he had been at his apartment all evening on March 3 watching basketball on television. Appellant said he went to Sav-A-Lot at about 4:30 p.m. and purchased some groceries, then he went home and remained there all night. Appellant slept late the next morning. After rising, he visited some friends. His friends told him about the bomb threat at Sav-A-Lot, so he called Jeanie Morris, the day manager. Appellant said Morris laughed about the bomb and joked about it being a hoax bomb. A videotape of Day's interview with appellant was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. Officer Steve Northington testified he helped FBI agents interview some of Sav-A-Lot's employees, including Jeanie Morris, Stephanie Shaw, LaKindra Runnels, and Lisa Camacho. When appellant's name was mentioned as a potential suspect, Northington went to appellant's apartment complex and learned appellant still lived there. Northington was informed that a witness named Zamora had come forward and said he was the person who gave the note to the cashier. Northington went to Zamora's house and showed him a photographic spread containing six individual pictures of possible suspects. Zamora identified appellant's photograph as the man who had given him the envelope and five dollars to deliver it to the store's manager. Jeannie Morris, the daytime Save-A-Lot manager, testified appellant began working there in the summer of 2008, and was terminated on or about February 1, 2009. Appellant picked up his last paycheck not more than a week after he was terminated. Morris was off on March 3, but she was working at Sav-A-Lot on March 4 when detectives came there. Morris testified she did not receive a phone call from appellant while she was talking to a detective; the call was from ex-employee Joe Ridenour who was looking for appellant. Morris testified the hoax bomb situation was "not a laughing matter," and she had never joked to anyone about the situation. Morris also testified only employees know that money is put in the safe in the evening shortly before closing time. Several of Sav-A-Lot's employees testified they had seen appellant inside the store the day before and the day on which the bomb threat note was delivered. Stephanie Shaw, an assistant manager, testified she was counting money in the office on Monday, March 2, 2009, when she saw appellant come into Sav-A-Lot. Appellant knocked on the customer service center door and said, "[H]i." Shaw was not working at Sav-A-Lot on March 3. Elvia Angeles, a cashier, testified she saw appellant in Sav-A-Lot on March 2. She also saw appellant in Sav-A-Lot early in the day on March 3. Appellant was walking around Sav-A-Lot visiting with several employees. Later in the evening, Angeles was working at the front register when Zamora came in and handed her a white envelope, which she in turn handed to Runnels. Lisa Camacho testified she had seen appellant in Sav-A-Lot on both March 2 and March 3. On March 2, appellant walked into Sav-A-Lot carrying a black bag with handles on it. Appellant was looking around Sav-A-Lot as if he was checking to see if anyone was watching him. Appellant walked toward the back of Sav-A-Lot. Camacho was in the customer service center at the time and did not see where appellant went. The restrooms and the employee break room are at the back of Sav-A-Lot. Camacho saw appellant leave Sav-A-Lot a short time later, and he did not have anything with him then. On March 3, Camacho saw appellant in Sav-A-Lot sometime in the afternoon. Joe Ridenour testified he worked in the maintenance department at the Creekmore Apartments where appellant lived. He and appellant were childhood friends, and Ridenour at one time worked at Sav-A-Lot with appellant. Ridenour testified that on March 4, 2009, he called Sav-A-Lot's day manager to find appellant. Appellant was not in his apartment, and Ridenour intended to tell him the apartment manager had instructed Ridenour to remove appellant's belongings from the apartment because appellant's rent was a couple of months overdue. A few days after Ridenour's call to the manager, a police detective came to the complex and talked with him about appellant. Ridenour told the officers he helped appellant get a job at Sav-A-Lot. After Ridenour took a job at the Creekmore Apartments, he helped appellant get an apartment there. Ridenour told the officers appellant still lived in the apartment, but was being evicted for not paying the rent. Julie Soto testified she and appellant socialized outside of their jobs at Sav-A-Lot. One day, appellant told her Sav-A-Lot would be easy to rob because there were no working cameras and only women worked there at night. Soto testified that all of the employees joked about Sav-A-Lot not having the surveillance cameras turned on. Appellant also told Soto that the first of the month, right before closing, was the best time to rob Sav-A-Lot because people came in with their checks. Soto testified Sav-A-Lot closed at 9:00 p.m. daily except Sundays when it closed at 8:00 p.m. On March 3, appellant came to Soto's apartment at about 7:00 p.m. and stayed the entire evening. Soto testified that when she talked to police detectives, she initially told them appellant came to her apartment sometime between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. During a second interview with the detectives, she told them appellant arrived at her apartment at 7:00 p.m. Soto said she had gotten confused because she had "been up" for four days and had taken "several Tylenol PM" that evening. FBI special agent Michael Krenek testified he obtained photographs from Sav-A-Lot's surveillance cameras taken on March 2 and March 3. The photographs were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. Krenek identified photographs of appellant wearing a plaid shirt moving toward the restroom area at the back of Sav-A-Lot. Krenek also identified a photograph of appellant entering Sav-A-Lot wearing the same plaid shirt. Krenek testified he assisted Sherman police officers with interviewing witnesses. He interviewed Julie Soto twice because she gave inconsistent statements about the time she had been with appellant the evening of March 3. Krenek testified that there were no usable fingerprints found on the envelope, note, or debris from the hoax bomb. At least five individuals had handled the envelope and note before they were sealed in evidence bags. Likewise, forensic analysis could not match the electrical tape from the device to the rolls of tape found in appellant's vehicle and apartment, and the writing on the note could not be matched with samples of appellant's handwriting. Krenek testified he has investigated over 100 bank robberies, ransoms, extortions, and threat cases. Krenek believed the bomb threat note contained an "extraordinary amount of detail far in excess of what was needed to accomplish the goal if the goal was to rob Sav-A-Lot." Grayson County sheriff's deputy Adam Bradshaw testified that on March 4, 2009, he had a warrant for Julie Soto's arrest. Bradshaw went to her apartment complex, located in Denison, early in the morning and confirmed Soto's address with the manager and that she still lived there. Bradshaw went to Soto's apartment. After Bradshaw knocked for several minutes, appellant opened the door. Appellant identified himself with a driver license. Appellant said Soto was not there at the moment. A woman named Lisa Kendrick came out of the bathroom and said Soto was visiting friends in Dallas. Bradshaw then asked to see Soto's room. Both appellant and Kendrick pointed to a bedroom at the back of the apartment. When Bradshaw went into that bedroom, he found Soto hiding in the closet and arrested her. Bradshaw testified appellant was not at the Creekmore Apartments, located in Sherman, sleeping late as appellant had later told a detective. Applicable Law
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). We are required to 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. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326. "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In a circumstantial-evidence case, it is unnecessary for every fact to point directly and independently to the defendant's guilt; rather, it is sufficient if the finding of guilt is supported by the cumulative force of all the incriminating evidence. Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The standard of review is the same for cases based on direct and circumstantial evidence. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; King, 29 S.W.3d at 565. The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, intentionally or knowingly threatened or placed another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (West 2003). 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 aids the other person in committing the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2) (West 2003). In determining whether the accused is guilty as a party, the fact-finder may consider events occurring before, during, or after commission of the offense. See Michel v. State, 834 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no pet.). Participation in an enterprise may be inferred from the circumstances and need not be shown by direct evidence. Wygal v. State, 555 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Thus, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove a person is a party to an offense. Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Wygal, 555 S.W.2d at 469. Discussion
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient because no witness saw who placed an explosive device in the men's restroom, there was no evidence he had knowledge of the contents of the note, and there was no forensic evidence linking him to the explosive device. The State responds the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant committed the robbery. The fact that no forensic evidence found matched appellant's DNA or writing sample does not show the evidence is insufficient. Soto testified that appellant talked about how easy it would be to rob Sav-A-Lot. Zamora testified appellant gave him an envelope and instructed him to deliver it to the Sav-A-Lot manager. The envelope contained a bomb threat and asked for money from Sav-A-Lot's safe. Several employees testified appellant was in Sav-A-Lot both the day before and the day of the bomb threat. Camacho testified that the day before the bomb threat, appellant walked into Sav-A-Lot carrying a black bag, but did not have the bag when he left. Photographs taken from Sav-A-Lot's surveillance cameras showed appellant walking toward the back of the store where the restroom was located. It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and the jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant acted as a principal or a party to the offense of robbery. See Michel, 834 S.W.2d at 67. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895. We overrule Robertson's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.