Opinion
No. 04-16-00375-CR
09-06-2017
Raymundo MARTINEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CR7831
Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice AFFIRMED
A jury convicted appellant Raymundo Martinez of one count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, enhanced by a prior conviction. On appeal, Martinez contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Caroline Carranza was working as a cashier at a local convenience store. Shortly after the store opened, a man entered the store, drew a knife, and demanded that money be placed in a bag. As this was occurring, another customer, Rose Pena, entered the store with her two grandchildren. She noticed the robber, ran out of the store with the children, and called 911. As Ms. Pena left, Ms. Carranza placed approximately $1,500.00 into the bag, and the perpetrator fled the store. Police arrived shortly thereafter. Both women told police they recognized the robber as a man named Raymundo Martinez. Martinez was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
At trial, Ms. Carranza testified the person who robbed the store was a man named Martinez, who was a regular customer that came in weekly to cash paychecks from a restaurant next door where he worked. She stated that even though Martinez attempted to cover his face with a bandana and sunglasses, she recognized his face and his voice, which she described as unique. Ms. Carranza had previously identified Martinez from a photo array shown to her by Detective Jeffrey Smith of the San Antonio Police Department. She also identified him in the courtroom during trial as the person who perpetrated the robbery.
Ms. Pena testified she entered the store while the robbery was in progress and recognized the robber as "J.R.," a man she had worked with for a time at the restaurant next door. After calling 911, she called her employer and learned J.R.'s real name — Raymundo Martinez. Detective Smith showed Ms. Pena a photograph of Martinez, and she affirmed he was the man known to her as J.R. She also identified him in court as the man she knew as J.R. and as the person who robbed the convenience store. Like Ms. Carranza, Ms. Pena also testified Martinez had a unique voice that was distinctly recognizable.
SAPD Officer Francisco Serna responded to the 911 call made by Ms. Pena about a robbery in progress. The camera in his patrol vehicle captured footage of a male behind a post office who matched the description of the suspect given by the witnesses. Officer Serna testified he subsequently found a knife near the store that was similar to the one on the video from the convenience store. The evidence showed SAPD Sergeant Ignacio Vidaurri attempted to lift fingerprints from the knife, but was unsuccessful. Detective Bratton also spoke with the witnesses, who both told him they had previous encounters with the robber and recognized him as Raymundo Martinez
As further proof of identification, Bexar County District Attorney Investigator Anthony Rodriguez testified at trial, stating Martinez had tattoos on his hands that appeared to match tattoos on the hands of the robber, which were captured on the convenience store's video surveillance. The State also presented the convenience store video as evidence. The video was admitted into evidence and viewed by jurors.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury convicted Martinez of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to forty-five years' confinement. Martinez then perfected this appeal.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Martinez raises a single issue, contending the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. He specifically argues the evidence is insufficient to establish his identity as the person who robbed the convenience store.
Standard of Review
In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Under this standard, 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 afforded their testimony. Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757; Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Moreover, we must assume the jury resolved any apparent inconsistencies in testimony in order to render its verdict, and we defer to its resolution. Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757; Isassi v State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The jury can choose to believe some, all, or none of the testimony provided by any witness, and give different weight to different testimony if it so chooses. Baez v State, 486 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. ref'd) (citing Chambers v State, 805 S.W.3d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
Application
A person commits aggravated robbery if, during the course of a theft, he uses or exhibits a deadly weapon, and thereby intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly places a person in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). Martinez does not dispute that a deadly weapon was displayed during the commission of a theft that placed another person at risk of imminent serious harm or death. Rather, as noted above, he argues his identification as the perpetrator is not supported by sufficient evidence and given the evidence, no reasonable trier of fact could have found him guilty. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deferring to the jury's credibility and weight determinations, we disagree. See Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757.
As set out above, Ms. Carranza testified Martinez was a regular in the convenience store and she had numerous interactions with him in the past. In fact, when he first asked her to put the money in the bag, she thought he was joking. At that point, he pulled out a knife and she realized he was serious. She identified him as the perpetrator, specifically testifying she saw his face and recognized his voice. Moreover, the perpetrator specifically asked Ms. Carranza to get the money from underneath the register. Ms. Carranza believed Martinez knew about the money under the register based on his numerous interactions at the store. At trial and now on appeal, Martinez argues Ms. Carranza did not have time to see the perpetrator's face clearly before it was covered up, and that she did not work at the convenience store at a time when Martinez would have been regularly cashing checks there. According to Martinez, Ms. Carranza began working at the convenience store months after Martinez left his job at the next-door restaurant.
Ms. Pena also identified Martinez as the perpetrator during her testimony. Ms. Pena knew Martinez because they had worked together at the restaurant next door to the convenience store. She too noted his unique voice, which she recognized. According to Ms. Pena, when she walked into the store, Martinez walked toward her, calling out her name from the store's doorway as she fled. Martinez argues Ms. Pena would have been unable to see the perpetrator's face clearly. He asserts that because she walked into the store behind the perpetrator, she could only see his back.
The State also introduced a video of the robbery that was captured by the convenience store's video surveillance equipment. The video was admitted and shown to the jury.
With regard to both eyewitnesses, Martinez contends their identifications are faulty — not rational — because neither woman mentioned or saw certain distinctive features — a facial mole and hand and arm tattoos. Although Ms. Carranza could not recall his tattoos, she testified the robber was wearing long sleeves. She admitted she did not recall any tattoos on the perpetrator's hands. Furthermore, he argues the "blurry" surveillance video seen by the jury is inconclusive and there were no fingerprints found on the knife. Thus, he contends the evidence is insufficient to establish his identity as the person who robbed the convenience store.
Admittedly, the identification of the robber was disputed at trial. Martinez's defense hinged on certain inaccuracies and gaps in the eyewitness testimony. However, as outlined above, the jury is solely responsible for determining the credibility of any testimony and the weight it should be afforded, and may believe all, part, or none of it. See Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757; Baez, 486 S.W.3d at 594. Moreover, it is the jury's responsibility to resolve any inconsistencies in witness testimony. See Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757. The jurors heard testimony from two eyewitnesses and viewed the video, concluding Martinez was the perpetrator. We may not re-evaluate the weight or credibility of that evidence. See Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757. Accordingly, we hold the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's determination that Martinez committed the robbery.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we overrule Martinez's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice Do Not Publish