Opinion
No. 05-10-01445-CR
03-14-2012
RONNIE LYNN CAPEHART II, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion issued March 14, 2012
On Appeal from the 15 Judicial District Court
Judicial District Court of Grayson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 058956).
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 058956
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Fillmore, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Morris
A jury convicted Ronnie Lynn Capehart II of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Appellant now complains that the evidence against him was legally insufficient. Concluding appellant's issues are without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
The complainant, Robin Bridges, was parked in a Wal-Mart parking lot when appellant began threatening him. Appellant cursed at Bridges and threatened to harm Bridges and Bridges's family. He told Bridges he was going to take anything he had. At some point, Bridges got out of his vehicle and told appellant to move on or he was going to call the police. The two got into a physical fight, shoving and punching each other. Appellant pulled a box cutter or utility knife out of his car and threatened Bridges with the knife.
After the incident, Bridges, who had been at Wal-Mart to perform his job for a beer distributing company, contacted his employer to find out what he should do. After talking to several people, he went into Wal-Mart to try to report the offense to police and was able to talk to a police officer who was already at the store. The officer photographed Bridges's injuries and got a description of his assailant. He also discovered that the altercation had been recorded by Wal-Mart video surveillance cameras. A recording of the altercation was admitted into evidence.
The video recording had also been broadcast on local television in an effort to locate a suspect for the offense. Carrie Gracia, a woman who lived across the street from appellant, and James Hansley, the stepfather of appellant's girlfriend, both contacted police after seeing the video recording on television. They recognized the car appellant had been driving based on distinctive stickers on its back window, and Hansley specifically recognized appellant. Hansley recalled giving appellant and his stepdaughter permission to take the car that day. When they returned, the car was dented, and appellant had a black eye. He told Hansley he had gotten into a fight at Wal-Mart.
After Gracia and Hansley contacted police about the televised video, Bridges identified appellant in a photo array as the man who had assaulted him. Then officers arrested appellant at the house where he lived with his girlfriend and her parents. The girlfriend told one of the officers at the scene that she had the box cutter in her purse, and they photographed and collected it at that time. Appellant later said that he had thrown away the weapon used during the offense because he did not want to get caught with it. Appellant maintained that the altercation was just a fight between Bridges and him.
The officer who assisted Bridges at Wal-Mart stated that a box cutter is a form of a knife and has been used as a deadly weapon on numerous occasions. He agreed that such a knife could cause serious bodily injury. The officer who arrested appellant testified that, based on his training and experience, he considered such a knife to be a deadly weapon. He concurred that a knife like the one used by appellant could cause serious bodily injury.
Appellant's wife testified that the day after the incident, appellant told her he “tried to rob the Andrews Distributing man.” Appellant said he had tried to rob the man so he could pay his cell phone bill. He also told his wife he used a box cutter during the offense. Appellant's wife testified that she and appellant are separated but still regularly speak to one another.
Bridges testified that as he was preparing to get out of his vehicle to do his work at Wal-Mart, he heard a man in the car next to him yelling at him from his open driver's side door. He looked over and saw appellant, who yelled that he was going to cut Bridges up and kill him. Appellant continued threatening Bridges from his car that he was going to kill Bridges's wife, kill his mother, rape his mother, rape his daughter, rape his wife and “take anything you got.” Bridges took appellant's final comment as a threat that appellant would rob him.
Bridges was afraid appellant was going to damage his car. He got out of his car to tell appellant that he was going to write down his car tag number before he went inside so that if his car was damaged when he returned, he would know who had done it when he called the police. At that point, appellant got more aggressive. He got out of his car with a utility knife or box cutter in his hand. He threatened to kill Bridges and said he would cut him up. Then the men began throwing punches at one another. Bridges was concerned that appellant would cause him serious bodily injury with the knife. He tried to persuade appellant that the police had probably already been called. A woman with appellant told him they had to go because he “couldn't afford to go back to jail.” Appellant said that he would “finish the job,” which Bridges took to mean that appellant would try to kill him. During the altercation, Bridges saw appellant reach down and grab a knife from the floorboard of his car. Bridges did not know if this was the original knife or another one. He reached down to keep appellant's hand pinned to the floorboard so he could not stab him. Then appellant head butted him several times.
After appellant finally left the scene, Bridges reported the occurrence to police. He had bruises on his arm, shoulder, lower leg, and stomach. Bridges admitted that he might have had the chance to run into Wal-Mart and ask for a police officer but he explained, “[Y]ou're not thinking correctly when you got somebody with a knife threatening to kill you.”
Appellant's mother, Sandra Dooley, testified for the defense. She claimed that she pays appellant's cell phone bill every month and has done so for at least three years. She claimed she pays the bill for appellant because he mows her yard and does odd jobs for her. She also stated that she gives appellant money if he asks for it.
Discussion
In his first issue, appellant complains the evidence against him was legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. He specifically contends there was no evidence showing he intended to commit theft or attempted to commit theft. In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Appellant notes that there is no evidence showing he attempted to take anything from Bridges during the scuffle. Nevertheless, there is evidence that appellant threatened to “take anything you got” from Bridges and that appellant told his wife he had tried to rob Bridges to get money for his cell phone bill. The jury, as finder of fact, was entitled to disbelieve appellant's mother's claim that she was responsible for paying appellant's cell phone bill. See Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery. We resolve appellant's first issue against him.
In his second and third issues, appellant complains the evidence was legally insufficient to support the deadly weapon finding in both cases and to support the aggravated assault conviction because the State failed to prove the box cutter was a deadly weapon. An object can be a deadly weapon by design or use. Tucker v. State, 274 S.W.3d 688, 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). An object is a deadly weapon by use if in the manner of its use or intended use, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The State is not required to show that the use or intended use causes death or serious bodily injury, but that the use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Id. In determining whether a knife is a deadly weapon, we may consider (1) the size, shape, and sharpness of the knife; (2) the manner of the knife's use or intended use; the nature or existence of any inflicted wounds; and (4) testimony about the knife's life-threatening capabilities. See Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
Here, the testimony clearly showed that Bridges was afraid appellant was going to cause him serious bodily injury. Police testimony established that such a knife may be wielded as a deadly weapon, and the jury was able to see the knife used (or one similar to it). Appellant wielded the knife in a menacing fashion as he threatened to kill Bridges. Again, deferring to the jury as the finder of fact and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, we conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the deadly weapon finding in each case and the evidence was legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction for aggravated assault. We resolve appellant's second and third issues against him.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
101445F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RONNIE LYNN CAPEHART II, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-10-01445-CR
Appeal from the 15
Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered March 14, 2012.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE