Opinion
No. 05-04-01637-CR
Opinion issued February 13, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F04-49257-HK. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
OPINION
Patrick Lee Dockery appeals his robbery conviction. The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to ten years' confinement, probated for five years, and a $750 fine. In six points of error, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to show he committed theft, caused bodily injury to the complainant, or placed the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury. We affirm the trial court's judgment. On February 17, 2004, Chad Huntsinger was working as a loss prevention and safety department manager at an electronics store in Dallas. Huntsinger received a radio call that caused him to go to the loss prevention office. From the office, Huntsinger saw appellant conceal numerous audio CDs in his jacket sleeve and under his jacket. Huntsinger then went outside the store and waited for appellant to leave. Appellant left the store without paying for the CDs, and Huntsinger approached appellant and showed his badge. Appellant "slapped [Huntsinger's] hand out of the way real quick" and attempted to flee, but Huntsinger and another officer pursued appellant and wrestled him to the ground. Before restraining appellant, Huntsinger saw appellant "with a balled fist as if he was about to hit [Huntsinger]." Huntsinger testified he was in fear of imminent bodily injury before appellant was restrained to the ground. The trial court convicted appellant of robbery, and this appeal followed. In his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth points of error, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to prove several elements of the charged offense, namely whether he committed theft, caused Hunstinger bodily injury, and placed Huntsinger in fear of imminent bodily injury. When we review the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 427 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Turner, 805 S.W.2d at 427. In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we are to view all of the evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither party. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We must determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both supporting and against the finding, demonstrates that the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Evidence is factually insufficient when evidence supporting the verdict, considered by itself, is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence is also insufficient when contrary evidence is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard could not have been met. Id. A person commits the offense of robbery if, in the course of committing theft, and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another or intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 2003). A person commits the offense of theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Here, Huntsinger testified he saw appellant conceal CDs in his jacket and leave the store without paying for them. Huntsinger testified he was placed in fear of imminent bodily injury when appellant balled a fist and looked like he was about to hit Huntsinger, and Huntsinger received cuts and scrapes on his hand and a bruise on his elbow during his encounter with appellant. We conclude this evidence is legally and factually sufficient to show appellant committed theft, caused Huntsinger bodily injury, and placed Huntsinger in fear of imminent bodily injury. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 484-85. We overrule appellant's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.