No. 05-02-01329-CR No. 05-02-01330-CR
Opinion issued August 12, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-19763-QH, F02-19764-QH. AFFIRMED
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and MOSELEY.
Opinion By Justice MORRIS.
In these cases, a jury convicted Hubert Q. Warren of retaliation. After finding one enhancement paragraph true, the trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years' confinement in each case. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the convictions. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Factual Background
At 10:00 p.m. on January 13, 2002, Joseph Wetzel and Adria Worsham, Dallas Area Rapid Transit police officers, asked passengers on a DART train that was leaving the St. Paul Station to show their tickets. When Wetzel asked appellant for his ticket, appellant shook his head no. Wetzel asked appellant why he did not have a ticket. Appellant shook his head no, pointed to his mouth, and continued shaking his head no when Wetzel asked if appellant could talk. Wetzel gave appellant a pen and paper and asked appellant to write his name and date of birth. Appellant wrote only his name on the paper. When the train stopped at the Pearl Station, Wetzel told appellant he needed to get off the train. Appellant shook his head no. Wetzel and Worsham escorted appellant off the train and sat him down on a bench. They continued requesting appellant's birth date and other identification. Appellant continued shaking his head no without speaking. Wetzel told appellant he would be taken to jail for theft of services and not identifying himself if he did not cooperate. Appellant held out his hands for Wetzel to put on handcuffs. Wetzel placed appellant's hands behind appellant's back and handcuffed him. Appellant immediately began cursing and yelling obscenities at Wetzel and Worsham. Wetzel testified that because he and Worsham left their patrol car at the Union Station, he had to call another officer to transport them to Union Station. While they waited, appellant threatened to kill Wetzel and Worsham. Wetzel testified appellant said that as soon as appellant got out of jail, he would put handcuffs on Wetzel, "beat my ass," and "blow my head off." Wetzel heard appellant tell Worsham that the next time she was at work, he would come to her work and kill her, and blow her head off. Appellant said they needed to tell President Bush that the next time he was in town, appellant would "put a cap in his ass also." Wetzel testified he took appellant's threats seriously because appellant knew where he and Worsham worked. When Wetzel searched appellant, he found a warning citation that another DART officer had issued to appellant that morning, but he did not find any weapons. Wetzel further testified he and Worsham were dressed in their uniforms, appellant appeared to understand the situation, and he believed appellant intended to carry out his threats when he got out of jail. Worsham testified appellant continually yelled obscenities, curses, and threats at her and Wetzel from the time he was handcuffed until he was placed in Officer Milton's patrol car for the trip to Union Station. Appellant told Worsham he knew where she worked and that "once he got out, he was going to come back and kill me." She also heard appellant say he would handcuff and beat Wetzel, then "blow his head off." Worsham testified that when Milton arrived, she and Milton walked appellant to the patrol car while Wetzel rode the train back to Union Station. Appellant repeatedly stated he was going to kill Worsham when he got out of jail, and made statements threatening to kill President Bush. Milton testified that while he walked appellant to the patrol car, appellant said he was going to kill Worsham and put a bullet in President Bush's head. Appellant testified in his defense. He admitted he rode the train without a ticket and did not talk when the officers asked him for his name, but he claimed he wrote his name, address, and birth date on the paper given to him by the officer. Appellant also claimed he cooperated with the officers at all times, and that the officers took his arms and escorted him off the train even though he got up when the officers asked him to get off the train. Appellant testified he spoke to the officer immediately after getting off the train. He told the officers they had all the information needed to write him a ticket and asked them to just write the ticket and leave him alone because he did not want to talk to the officers. According to appellant, the officers kept taunting him by asking him questions, so he made statements to them that would treat the officers the way appellant felt he was being treated. Appellant said to Wetzel, "[You] officers feeling so protected by the Constitution of the United States, what if I take the handcuffs, put them on you and shoot you in your head." However, appellant claimed he only used that statement as a "example," and he never intended it to be a threat. Appellant admitted he told Worsham that he would come to her work and kill her. Appellant claimed he only wanted to be left alone and was commenting on the officers' lack of courtesy. Appellant testified he made "some comments" about the president only to say to the officers that if they were going to charge him with threatening a police officer, they should "go ahead and charge [him] with threatening the president." During cross-examination, appellant testified he could not remember everything he said, but he claimed he never actually threatened to kill the president or anyone else. However, appellant remembered saying to Worsham "I'm going to come backup [sic] here when I get out and kill you" and "I'm going to get your . . . fat ass." Appellant claimed he made the statements as an example of what would happen to them based upon how they conducted themselves as police officers. He claimed he had no intention of acting out any of the statements he made to the officers. Appellant admitted he had previous felony convictions. Discussion
In two issues, appellant complains the evidence against him is legally and factually insufficient. He claims the statements made by him were consistent with the ravings of a mentally ill or challenged person and it is clear he exhibited severe mental problems when he was accosted by the officers. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318- 19 (1979). In a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence demonstrates the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury's determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Here, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally or knowingly threatened to harm two DART police officers by an unlawful act on account of the status of the officers as public servants. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 36.06(a) (Vernon 2003). Both Wetzel and Worsham heard appellant threaten to beat, kill, or shoot them in the head when he got out of jail, and both believed appellant would act on those threats. Wetzel testified appellant appeared to understand the situation, but he continually refused to give his date of birth. Appellant denied threatening the officers, but he admitted he told Worsham that he would go to her work and kill her. Appellant claimed he only made the statements to make the officers leave him alone. Nevertheless, the jury in this case was the exclusive judge of the facts provided and of the weight to be given to the testimony. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979). Moreover, there was no evidence presented during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial that showed appellant was suffering from severe mental problems when he was approached by Wetzel and Worsham. The only evidence that appellant had previously been treated at mental hospitals came during the punishment phase when the presentence investigation report was being discussed. Having reviewed all the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain the convictions. Accordingly, we resolve appellant's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.