Opinion
Nos. 05-06-00311-CR, 05-06-00312-CR.
Opinion Filed March 23, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 22891-422 and 22336-422. AFFIRMED
Before Justices MOSELEY, FRANCIS, and MAZZANT Opinion By Justice MOSELEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Charlton Earell Watson of aggravated robbery and of evading detention or arrest with a motor vehicle. The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by one prior felony conviction, at fifty years' confinement for aggravated robbery and twenty years' confinement for evading arrest, with a fine of $5,000 in each case. Watson appeals, asserting in two issues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in the punishment stage of trial by admitting documents of extrinsic offenses. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first issue, Watson challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the deadly weapon finding in both convictions. We apply the appropriate standards of review. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (legal sufficiency); Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 95 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (legal sufficiency). See also Garza v State, ___S.W.3d___, No. AP-74,935, 2007 WL 257615, at *3 (Tex.Crim.App. Jan. 31, 2007) (factual sufficiency); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). A person commits aggravated robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § § 29.02, 29.03 (Vernon 2003). A person commits the offense of evading arrest when he intentionally flees from a person who he knows is a peace officer and who is attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04 (Vernon 2003). This offense is a Class B misdemeanor unless the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight, in which case the offense is enhanced to a felony. Id. § 38.04(b). The record contains evidence that on December 7, 2003, Watson and two friends, "Black" and Amado, robbed Kalled Shallibi, the owner of a convenience store in Terrell. At approximately 9:00 p.m. Watson and Black approached Shallabi, Watson pressed the barrel of a loaded gun to his head and demanded money. (According to the State, Amado stayed in the car.) Watson took Shallabi's wallet containing about $670.00 cash and his car keys. Shallabi thought Watson was going to kill him. Black drove away in Shallabi's car and Watson got into another car and drove away. After Watson and Black left Shallabi called the police and described the car as a brown Buick Regal or Oldsmobile with an off-white bumper. Police located Watson's car and a high-speed chase ensued. Police saw things being thrown from the car during the chase. Watson eventually jumped out of his car while it was still moving and attempted to escape on foot. The next day, a city maintenance worker found a gun in a bush along the route of the chase. Considering all the evidence (including that summarized above) in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson used a deadly weapon-a gun-while robbing Shallabi, and that he was the driver of the automobile while he was evading arrest. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 95. Thus, we decide appellant's legal sufficiency argument against him. Watson contends the evidence is factually insufficient to show he used a handgun during the robbery because the gun found in the bush along the chase route was not identified by Shallabi as the gun used during the robbery. However, Shallabi and Amado testified that Watson put a handgun to Shallabi's head, and in his statement Amado said that Watson threw the gun out of the car during the chase. Additionally, Watson argues the record does not support a finding that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the chase because police did not see his face while driving the car. However, Shallabi and the officers testified that Watson was the driver, and the officers testified they observed Watson exit the vehicle through the driver's side door. Thus, considering all the evidence in a neutral light and in the context of a hypothetically correct jury charge authorized by the indictment, we conclude the fact finder was rationally justified in finding Watson guilty of both offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 415; Fuller, 73 S.W.3d at 254. We need not further detail the rest of the evidence. See Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We decide appellant's factual sufficiency arguments against him. As a result, we resolve Watson's first issue against him. In his second issue, Watson contends the trial court erred at the punishment stage of trial by admitting police reports, stipulations and unspecified details about his criminal history. We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). We reverse only when the trial court's decision was so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. We uphold the trial court's ruling if it was correct on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence and applicable to the case. Id. The materials included in the State's exhibits were agreed to by Watson and admitted without objection. A timely and specific objection, motion, or complaint and a ruling by the trial court are required to preserve a complaint for appellate review. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because Watson failed to make a timely objection to the State's exhibits we resolve Watson's second issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.