Nos. 05-07-00676-CR, 05-07-00677-CR, No. 05-07-00749-CR
Opinion issued February 29, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-86341-UT, F06-86342-UT, and F06-86343-UT.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, RICHTER, and MAZZANT. Opinion By Justice MAZZANT.
AMOS L. MAZZANT, Justice.
A jury convicted Stephen Lynn Buggs of trafficking of a person, aggravated kidnapping, and compelling prostitution. During the punishment phase, the jury found two enhancement paragraphs true and assessed punishment at seventy-five years' imprisonment in the trafficking and compelling prostitution cases and sixty years' imprisonment in the aggravated kidnapping case. In three points of error, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support the convictions. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Background
F.B., the complainant, testified she was a fourteen-year-old runaway when she met appellant at the downtown Dallas bus station in November 2005. Appellant drove F.B. and her friend to an apartment in North Dallas and told them they could stay there. F.B. stayed at the apartment a few days, then appellant came to the apartment and took her to his residence in Pleasant Grove. A woman named Sheryn Villanueva lived with appellant. Appellant provided F.B. with false identification that said she was twenty-three years old. Appellant found her a job at a strip club and appellant had her engage in prostitution. F.B. gave appellant the money she made both from the club and from the prostitution. F.B. testified appellant also took her to East Dallas and had her "walk the street" to prostitute herself. Sometimes Villanueva was with appellant when he took F.B. to East Dallas. Appellant told F.B. to go outside and "get money." F.B. would bring a man back to the apartment, take him into one of the bedrooms while appellant stayed in the living room, and have sex for money. After the man paid F.B., she would give the money to appellant. F.B. testified appellant told her never to talk to other pimps or tell the police she was prostituting. F.B. testified she once saw appellant hit a woman named Dina in the face with a shovel. Dina was one of appellant's prostitutes. F.B. testified that while she lived in appellant's house, she had sexual intercourse with appellant on more than one occasion, and appellant gave her Xanax, cocaine, and marijuana. In January 2006, appellant and F.B. went to a bar that F.B. described as a "hangout for pimps." Appellant drank heavily that evening. They were to meet Villanueva at a restaurant after Villanueva finished dancing at a strip club that night. While at the bar, appellant became angry because he saw F.B. talking to another pimp. Even after they met Villanueva later at the restaurant and ate, appellant was still angry. On the way to appellant's house, appellant "cussed" at F.B. and called her names. When they arrived at the house, appellant pushed F.B. out of the truck and onto the driveway. After they went into the house, appellant hit F.B. with his fists and kicked her. Apellant threw a statute at F.B., hit her on the head with a bear bottle, then made her remove all her clothing. F.B. said there was a stand with several swords on it in the living room. Appellant took one of the swords and hit F.B. on the arms and legs with the blade. At one point, appellant pointed the blade at F.B.'s chest and said, "[I] could just stick this into you and kill you." Appellant told Villanueva to get a gun. Villanueva, who was standing in the living room watching appellant, got a gun and gave it to appellant. Appellant threatened to shoot F.B., then hit her with the gun. F.B. testified Villanueva intervened at one point and said, "[N]o, don't kill her because you'll catch another case." After appellant hit F.B. with the gun, he forced her to lie on the floor while he burned her with a cigarette. Appellant took the metal sword cover and inserted it into F.B.'s vagina. Appellant and Villanueva tied F.B.'s hands and feet behind her with a telephone cord, then tied her feet to her hands. Appellant cut F.B.'s hair with scissors, then put F.B. into the closet of the master bedroom. Appellant put tape over F.B.'s mouth, then closed the closet door. F.B. testified she was on the floor unable to untie herself. At some point while F.B. was in the closet, Villanueva opened the closet door and gave F.B. some water. Later, Villanueva helped F.B. "crawl on her knees" to the bathroom a few feet away, where F.B. wet on the floor. Villanueva did not untie F.B. at that time, but "helped" her back into the closet. F.B. testified she did not know how long she was in the closet, but eventually someone came and untied her. Villanueva put antibiotic ointment on F.B.'s face, arms, and legs, and gave her ibuprofen. F.B. was not taken to a doctor or hospital for treatment. F.B. testified she stayed in appellant's house for about a week after the beating. Both appellant and Villanueva stayed in the house with her during that time. After a week, appellant told F.B. she was going back to East Dallas to work as a prostitute. Appellant drove F.B. to the East Dallas apartment. After F.B. told appellant she was going to the store, F.B. returned to her mother's house. The next morning, F.B.'s mother called the police. F.B. testified she did not run away from appellant after she was untied because both appellant and Villanueva were with her all the time and she was afraid appellant would kill her. F.B. testified that when she talked to a police detective and a psychologist, she told them she never had sex with anyone or prostituted herself because she was embarrassed and thought she would be in trouble for the prostitution. F.B. testified she ran away from home over ten times, beginning when her stepfather returned to the home after spending time in jail for molesting F.B. Detective Angela Lundy, a child abuse investigator with the Carrollton Police Department, testified she interviewed F.B. on January 25, 2006. F.B. had been taken into custody for having run away from home. Lundy saw visible injuries on F.B.'s body, including a black eye, bruises and scrapes on F.B.'s thighs, arms, shoulders, and knee area, and burn marks on F.B.'s chest. Lundy took photographs of the injuries. The photographs were shown to the jury. Lundy testified that during the interview, F.B. denied working as a prostitute. Sheryn Villaneuva testified she had pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping and compelling prostitution. Villanueva hoped to receive probation even though she had no plea bargain agreement. Villanueva testified she had lived with appellant for about two years before F.B. came to stay there. Villanueva testified she worked as a medical assistant during the day and danced nude at a strip club in the evening. She gave appellant most of the money she made from her jobs. Villanueva testified she also worked as a prostitute and gave that money to appellant. Villanueva met F.B. in December 2005 when Villanueva went with appellant to an apartment in North Dallas and picked up F.B. Appellant took F.B. to an apartment in East Dallas to work as a prostitute, and F.B. gave appellant the money she made from prostitution. On a few occasions, Villanueva took F.B. to the East Dallas apartment to engage in prostitution. One night in January 2006, appellant and F.B. met Villanueva at a restaurant after Villanueva had finished dancing at the club. Appellant was drunk and mad about something, but they all ate at the restaurant. On the way home, appellant yelled and screamed at F.B. When they got home, appellant pulled both F.B. and Villanueva out of the truck. When they went into the house, Villanueva immediately went into the master bedroom, which was located next to the living room. She heard yelling and screaming, then heard sounds like "someone getting beat" and "breaking sounds." Villanueva rushed into the living room and saw appellant hitting F.B. "everywhere on her body." Appellant hit F.B. with a sword cover "many times." After appellant made F.B. take off all her clothing, he continued beating her. Then appellant burned F.B. with a cigarette. Villanueva saw appellant force F.B. to lie on the floor. Appellant inserted the sword cover into F.B.'s vagina, and kicked F.B. a few times. Appellant tied F.B.'s hands and feet together, then told Villanueva to put F.B. in the bedroom closet. Villanueva testified appellant beat F.B. for about two hours. Villanueva denied she got a gun for appellant to threaten F.B. Villanueva testified she did nothing while appellant beat F.B. because she was afraid appellant would turn on her. Villanueva testified F.B. remained in the closet for only a few hours. At one point, Villanueva heard F.B. calling her name. Villanueva went to the closet and threw a blanket over F.B., who was lying naked on the floor. Villanueva closed the door and went back to bed. Sometime later Villanueva heard F.B. calling out again. Appellant also heard F.B., and told Villanueva to untie F.B. Villanueva untied F.B., helped her into the bathroom, and then took F.B. into the living room, where F.B. fell asleep on the couch. Villanueva also fell asleep on the couch. When everyone woke up later that day, appellant told Villanueva to "heal [F.B.] back up." Villanueva believed appellant wanted F.B. healed so F.B. could return to work as a prostitute. Villanueva put antibiotic cream on F.B.'s cuts and scrapes and gave her ibuprofen. Villanueva cleaned up the blood, glass, and clothing from the living room. Appellant announced he and Villanueva would stay in the house for a week with F.B. Villanueva believed appellant wanted them to stay with F.B. because he did not want anyone to see F.B.'s injuries. Villanueva testified appellant "lived off the money from his prostitutes" and did not have a regular job. Villanueva also testified F.B. was free to leave the house at any time, and she would have helped F.B. leave if F.B. had said she wanted to go. Samuel Quattrochi is a licensed professional counselor, a certified probation officer, a licensed child care administrator, and the director of Letot, a facility for runaway or exploited children. Quattrochi testified F.B. stayed at Letot for twenty-six days. F.B. was diagnosed with mental problems, including bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, and depression. F.B. also had physical problems due to a hyperactive thyroid. According to Quattrochi, some children are at high risk for exploitation in child prostitution by pimps because they have experienced parental abandonment or abuse, negative peer influences, school problems, or substance or sexual abuse. Runaways are also at risk. Pimps commonly pick up runaways at the bus station, promise food and shelter, which is what most runaways need, and provide attention and affection to the runaway that often extends into a sexual relationship. Sometimes pimps will beat other girls in front of a child to get the child to comply with the pimp's demands, and pimps usually tell the child not to talk to law enforcement. Quattrochi testified that interviewing a child who has been victimized as a child prostitute is one of the most difficult kinds of interviews. The child is usually uncooperative, does not trust an adult, and usually denies they are a part of the commercial sex industry. Children often feel "too shameful" to admit they participated in child prostitution as well as being afraid of the consequences from the pimp if they admit to prostituting. Quattrochi testified that due to F.B.'s background and mental issues, he believed she was an "ideal candidate" to be exploited by a pimp. Kenneth Balagot, a forensic biologist with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, testified there were stains found on several items taken from appellant's living room, including an electrical cord, a sword cover, the blade of a sword, and the handle of a sword. The stains on the electrical cord, sword cover, and sword blade matched F.B.'s DNA. Appellant testified he had an extensive criminal history, including convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, driving while intoxicated, and assault. Appellant denied trafficking or compelling anyone to engage in prostitution, denied beating or kidnapping F.B., and denied he burned F.B. with cigarettes or threatened her with a gun. Appellant testified he met Villanueva at a strip club and she became his girlfriend even though he was married to someone else. Villanueva gave appellant money from her job dancing at a club to help pay the mortgage and other bills, but not from prostitution. According to appellant, Villanueva lied because she wanted to receive probation for these offenses. Appellant testified he was an alcoholic and sometimes had blackouts. Appellant met F.B. in November 2005 when a young man he knew called appellant for a ride from the bus station. The young man was accompanied by F.B. and another young girl. Appellant took the three of them to an apartment in North Dallas. About four days later, appellant and Villanueva returned to the North Dallas apartment and told F.B. she could come live with them. Appellant testified he was never alone with F.B. Whenever Villanueva went to work at the club, appellant drove F.B. to a "dope house" in East Dallas, where they "hung out." Appellant denied he had F.B. engage in prostitution from the East Dallas apartment. Appellant testified that around the second week in January 2006, he drank all evening at a bar with F.B., appellant's friend Vaness, and another woman. Appellant testified Vaness was a "want-to-be pimp." Appellant, F.B., Vaness, and the woman left the bar and met Villanueva at a restaurant, where they ate a little food, then went home. Appellant admitted he was angry at F.B. because he saw her talking to "some dudes" at the bar and he believed F.B. was trying to set him up to be robbed for his Rolex watch. Appellant did not remember pulling Villanueva or F.B. out of the truck when they got home, but admitted he slapped F.B. "on the side of her head" that night. Appellant testified he did not beat F.B. for two hours. After he slapped F.B. a few times, he passed out and went to sleep. When he awoke the next morning, both Villanueva and F.B. were on the living room couch. Villanueva cooked breakfast and they had a normal day. Appellant denied F.B. had a swollen face or bruises and cuts on her arms and legs. Later that evening, he, Villanueva, and F.B. went out together "kicking it." A few weeks later, when he and F.B. were "hanging around" in East Dallas, F.B. said she was going to the store. Appellant did not see F.B. again. Applicable Law
In a factual sufficiency review, an appellate court views all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the fact-finder's verdict of guilt was rationally justified. See Roberts v. State, 220 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); see also Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Unless the record clearly reveals a different result is appropriate, we must defer to the fact-finder's determination concerning what weight to give contradictory testimony. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). To obtain a conviction for trafficking of a person, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly trafficked F.B. by transporting her and with the intent that she engage in prostitution. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 20A.02(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007). To obtain a conviction for aggravated kidnapping, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally or knowingly abducted F.B., in that appellant restrained F.B. by confining her or moving her from one place to another, by secreting or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found, or by threatening to use deadly force, and that appellant intentionally or knowingly used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a firearm, a sword, or a bottle, during the commission of the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 20.04(b) (Vernon 2003). To obtain a conviction for compelling prostitution, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly caused F.B., a person younger than seventeen years of age, to commit prostitution. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 43.05(a) (Vernon 2003). The actual commission of the offense of prostitution is not a prerequisite to the offense of compelling prostitution. See Davis v. State, 635 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Waggoner v. State, 897 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no pet.). The jury was instructed it could find appellant guilty as a party to each offense if it found he committed each offense by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible. The jury was instructed that 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 solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2003); Michel v. State, 834 S.W.2d 64, 67 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no pet.). Discussion
Appellant argues the evidence is factually insufficient because F.B.'s testimony was not credible. F.B. denied to the police and a counselor that she engaged in prostitution, and F.B. was free to leave appellant's house at any time. Appellant asserts Villanueva's testimony was biased and not credible because she hoped to get probation, and his testimony showed he did not commit any of the charged offenses. The State responds that the evidence is factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction in each case. There was conflicting evidence presented to the jury. F.B.and Villanueva testified appellant obtained false identification for F.B., found F.B. jobs that involved prostitution, and transported F.B. to different locations to have sex with men for money. On one occasion, appellant beat F.B. after she talked with another pimp, threatened to kill her with the sword and a gun, tied her up, and put her in his bedroom closet with tape over her mouth. Villanueva denied seeing a gun during the beating. Although Villanueva testified F.B. was free to leave anytime she wanted, Villanueva also testified both she and appellant stayed inside the house with F.B. for one week because they did not want anyone to see F.B.'s injuries. Appellant testified he never prostituted F.B. or anyone else, did not obtain false identification for F.B., and did not find F.B. jobs or take her to places for prostitution. Appellant testified he never beat, threatened, or tied up F.B., never held her in a closet, and he did not keep F.B. in the house for a week. Appellant denied F.B. had any injuries on the morning after he admittedly slapped her, and said F.B. was free to leave his house at any time. It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9. The jury was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, and we must afford due deference to its determination. See Marshall, 210 S.W.3d at 625. The jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude it is factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction in each case. See Roberts, 220 S.W.3d at 524. We overrule appellant's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgments.