NO. 07-07 -002 5-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JAN UA RY

4, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DO NN YKEV IN D AVIS , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 53, 837 -E; HON. ABE LOP EZ, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ On Mot ion for Rehea ring

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. P e n d i n g b e fo re t h e c o u rti s t h e m o t i o n o f D o n n y K e v i n D a v i s fo r

r e h e a r i n g . W e w it hdraw our prev iou s o pin ion and jud g men t e n tered i n thi s c ause and s ubst it ute t he follo w ing i n i ts ste ad. Davi s app eals his con v iction for burglariz ing a ha b it a t io n v ia four issues. He cont ends 1) the tr ial cour t er re d i n fail ing to hol d a h ear ing on h is moti on for new tr ial , 2) the tr ial courterred in fail ing to inc lud e an acc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti on i n the ch arg e, 3)2

he rec e ived ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el becau se hisco unsel fail ed to req uestan acc ompli ce w it ness i nstructi on, a nd 4)the acc ompli ce w it ness tes ti mony w as not suffici entl y

corroborated. W e ov er ru le is sues tw o and four, sus tai n iss ue one, s tay acti on on i ssu e t hree, a nd abat e and re mand the ca use for a hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for new tri al. Cor ro bor ati on of Ac com plice Tes ti

m ony Cor ro borati ng ev ide nce need only tend to conne ct the acc used to the of fense, no t est abl is h g uil t beyond a re asona ble doubt

. McDuf f v . St ate, 9 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 3 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 7). Moreover, there is no exact rule as to t h e a m o u n to f e v iden ce tha t is
re q uired for cor ro borati on. Dowth itt v . St ate, 931 S.W .2d 244 , 249 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96). Ins tead, eac h c ase must be decid e d u p on i ts ow n facts and ci rc umstan ces . Martinez v. State, 163 S. W .3d 9 2, 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2005, no pet .)

. The foll ow ing non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce is found in the record before us . Appel lan t had a his tor

y of soli ci ti ng m oney

f ro m ind iv idu als , inc lud ing the burg lar y v icti m, at the s it e of the burg lar

y . Immedia tel y

pri or to the burg lar

y , appell ant indi cat ed that someone w ho li ve d a tt h e a p a rt m e n tco m p le x ( o t h e r t h a n t h e e ve n t u a l b u rg la ry vi ct im ) o we d h im m o n e y. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant was seen by the burg lar

y v icti m lo oki ng i nto v ar iou s a par tm e nt
w ind ows w it hin twenty-four hours o f the ti me the burg lar y oc cur re d. He als o w ent t o the apa rtme nt com plex sho rtly b efore the b urglary

t o collect mo ney a llegedly o w ed to him . He
w as not only

there w hen t he burg lar y v icti m le ft for wor k b ut al so at or around t he ti me of the b urg lar

y . Next, of the v ar iou s ite ms stol en, o ne c onsi ste d of a bl ack , t hin Pl ay Stat ion II. Shor tl y after the burg lar

y , appel lan t paw ned, at a near by paw nbroker , a Pl ay Stat ion II
m atc hin g the desc ri pti on of the one s tol en. Fi nal ly , app ell ant a dmitted h e w as in the3

company

of the a cc ompli ce before an d after the burg lar

y ; i n fact, both w ere c aptured tog ether on v ide o w hen t he i tem was paw ned. W hile the accuse d’s presen ce at th e crime scen e is by itself in suf f icient to conn ect him to t he c ri me, presenc e c oupl ed w it h other ci rc umstan ces m ay be e noug h. Trevino v. State, 991 S.W .2d 849 , 851 -52 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9). Here, w e have notonly prese nce at t he s cene and w it h the ac compl ic e butal so moti v e ( i. e. appel lan t’ s repeated q uestfor money from t hose at t he apar tment compl e x), o p p ortuni ty ( presenc e throug hout the per ti nent ti mes) , s uspi ci ous act iv ity sh ortl y before the b urg lary

( loo ki ng i nto a par

tment
w ind ows) , pos ses si on o f a n i tem matc hin g the desc ri pti on of one t hat was sto len , int eract ion betw e e n appel lan t and the acc ompli ce, and appel lan t’ s p aw nin g the it em for
m o n e y. T h e s e fa ct s a re m o re t h a n s u f f ic ie n tt o t e n d t o c o n n e cta p p e ll a n tt o t h e b u rg la ry. See G il l v. State, 873 S.W .2d 45, 48- 49 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1994) (fin ding th e nonacc ompli ce ev ide nce suffici ent cor ro borati on w hen it showed 1) that the c omplai nant w as robb ed b y a perso n or perso ns, 2) the defend ant had the opp ortun ity to com mit th e robb ery becau se he l iv ed near by , 3)after the ro bber

y , t he defendant act ed s ecreti v ely , 4)the defenda n tw a s i n t h e p re s e n c e o f t h e a c c o mp l i c e a ft e r t h e t h e ft , a n d 5 ) t h e defendant joi ntl y pos ses sed it ems mat chi ng thos e sto len ). The fact that the compl ain ant d id not a t trial positively

ident if y the pawned PlayStation d evice as his ow n do es no t me an th e jury coul d not infer under thes e facts that it w as the s ame. See Watson v. State, 728 S. W .2d 109, 111- 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14 Dis t.] 1987, no pet.)( findi ng su ff ic ien t c or ro borati on th
ev en thoug h no one testi fied that the dres ser in appell ant’ s p oss ess ion after the theft w as the o ne s tol en)

.4

Mo re ov er , t he two aut hor it ies reli ed upon by appel lan t are i nappos it e. In Ex par te Zepe da , 819 S.W .2d 874 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1991) , the non- acc ompli ce tes ti mony i ll ust ra ted that Zepe da w as “n ear” the murder sc ene w it h a g ro up of peopl e tha t di d noti ncl ude t he dece den t, the dece den t w as shot w ith a rif le, an d Zepe da lat er tried to sell a rifle to a third p a rty. T h e co n n e ct io n be twe e n th e rif le an d th e m u rd e r wa s e s t a b lis h e d on ly th ro u gh
acc ompli ce tes ti mony

w hic h c oul d not be cons ide re d. Mo re ov er , nothi ng disc uss ed in t he opin ion suggested thatthe rif le w as of the sam e ma ke, m ode l, or ca liber as tha t used in the k il li ng . The Co urt of C ri minal Appea ls fo u n d thes e c ircums tanc es to be l ess than
eno ugh to con necta p p ellantto the murd er. Similarly , the non -accom plice evidence in Howar d v . St ate , 972 S.W .2d 1 2 1 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1998, no p et.)w as found w anti ng becau se itsi mply

pl aced Howard i n the room w herein dr ug s were found to be hi dden i n a lig ht f ixture. W ithou t the acco m p li c e t e s timo ny, nothin g else linked him to those drugs. Lik e bot h How

ard and Zepe da , here w e hav e non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce pla ci ng appel lan t
n e a r t h e cr im e sc e n e b e fo re t h e cr im e o c c u rre d

. Ye t , u n li k e t h o s e two c a s e s , we a ls o h a ve non- acc ompli ce tes ti mony i ll ust ra ti ng moti v e ( i. e. appel lan t’ s q uestfor mone y ), preparati on ( i. e. appel lan t’ s l ooki ng i n w ind ows o f v ar iou s a par tments ), appel lan t’ s presenc e w it h the
accom plice be fore an d after the burglary , app ellant ’s possessio n of an item actua lly
m a t c h in g t h e d e s c ri p t io n o f so m e t h in g s t o le n f ro m t h e a p a rt m e n t s o o n a f t e r t h e b u rg la ry, and app ellant ’s paw ning of the item in ex chan ge fo r mon ey. T hese add itiona l fa ctors cann ot be ig nore d an d suf f ice to carry

the situa t io n be fore us over the thre shold w hich coul d n o t b e c lea re d i n How ard and Zepe da. Accordingly , w e overrule appe llant’s
c o m p la in tt h a tt h e n o n -a c c o m p li c e e vid e n c e wa s in s u f f ic ie n tt o co n n e cth im t o t h e b u rg la ry.5

Fai lur e to Pr ovi de Ac com

plice Ins tr

uct ion Next, appe llant asserts tha t the trial court erred in om itting an accom plice w itness instructio n f rom its cha rg e. W e agree tha t it w as error but f ind th e error harm less. T he trial cou rt had a n ob lig ation to provide the inst ruction irrespective of any request by co unsel

. Howar

d v . St ate , 972 S.W .2d at 126. Y et, the har m emanati ng from t he tr ial
cour t’ s o mis si on mu stb e e gre gio us due t o c ounse l’ s fai lure to re q uesti t. Id. at 126- 27. W e conc lud e here that the tr ial cour t did er r but that the er ro r did not ri se to th e le vel of egregi ousn ess. As previously

add res s ed, suf

f icient no n-acco mp lice ev iden ce existed to con nect appel lan t t o the burg lar y . Indeed, it alone coul d hav e been enoug h to w ar ra nt c onv icti on. One n eed onl y

read Poncio v. State , 185 S.W .3d 904 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2006) to conc lud e thi s. There, ou r Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls hel d tha t t he recentpos ses si on of st ole n proper ty i s e noug h to suppo rtthe conv icti on of the poss ess or

for burg lar y . Id. at 904- 05. Here, we hav e tha t and more. Ag ain , t he record c ontai ned ev idence not o nly pl aci ng appel lan t atth e s ce n e butal so re v eal ing hi s q uestfor mone y , preparati on to act, po s s es s i on o f a Pl ay St at i on mat c hi ng the des c r i pt i on of th e s to l en o ne , pa w ni ng t he g am e c o n s o le , a n d b e in g i n t h e p re s e n c e o f a n o t h e r o f

t h e t h ie ve s b e fo re a n d a f t e r t h e b u rg la ry. W hil e no one direct ly tes ti fied that the Pl ay Stat ion w hic h appel lan t paw ned w as the
same o ne th at w as stol en, w e nonethel ess hav e circums tanti al ev ide nce suffici ent t o fil l the
v oid

. It cons is ted of the matchi ng descr ipt ion s of the i tem s tol en and the i tem paw ned, the close geographic prox imity betw een the pawn shop and the burglary scene , and the close temporal prox imi ty

between the ti me of the bu rg lar y and the t ime that appel lan t paw ned th e i t e m. Th e s e i n d i c i a e n a b l e o n e t o c o n c l u d e b e y o n d re a s o n a b l e d o u b t t hat t he i tem6

paw ned was the i tem s tol en and dis pel any noti on that omitti ng the i nst ru cti on c onst it uted eg reg i ou s h ar m. Ineff ect iv e As si sta nce of C ounse l/

Fai lur e to Req uest

Ac com plice Ins tr

uct ion App ellantagain questions th e om ission f rom the cha rg e of the acco mp lice w itness ins tr uct ion but does so by att ack ing the q ual ity

of his tr ial co unsel ’s per formance. Cou nsel ’s per

formance w as pur p o rt e d ly defecti v e bec ause he di d notas k for the ins tr uct ion

. F u rt h e rmore, ap pel lan t rais ed th is co ntent ion v ia a moti on for new tr ial
acc ompani ed by

the aff ida v itof defense c ounse l. A hear ing on the moti on w as sc hedul ed by th e t ri al cour

t butl ater

ca ncel led

. This resul ted i n the moti on bei ng ov er ru led by operati o n of

l aw . So, acc ordin g to appel lan t, both couns el’ s fai lure to re q uestthe i n s t r u ct i o n a n d t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s fa i l u re t o h o l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e m a tt e r w e re re v e rs i b l e . W e ag re e i n par

t. W hether th e tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to condu ct an ev ide nti ar y hear ing upon a moti on for new

tr ial depend s upon w hether it abused it s dis creti on. W all ace v. State, 106 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. F urther more, one is enti tl ed to su ch a hear ing onl y w hen the moti on and suppo rt ing aff ida v it s ra is e matters not dis cer nib le f ro m the
ex is ti ng record and w hic h could entitl e the m ov ant t o reli ef. Rozell v. State, 176 S. W .3d 228, 230 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. W it h these rul es in mind, w e tur n to the c ircums tanc es before us. Aut hority ex ists holdin g tha t a reaso nab ly comp ete nt at torne y

could notlegi tima tely foreg o req uest ing an a cc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti on ( w hen war ra nted by the ev ide nce)as par t of so me tr ial st ra teg y . See E x p ar te Zepeda , 819 S.W .2d a t 876 -7 7 ( hol din g thatthe failu re ev inc ed defic ien t per formance)

. Mo re ov er , appel lan t attac hed t o hi s t imel y moti on7

for new tr ial the aff ida v itof tr ial counsel w herein counsel admi tted that the o mis si on was notpart of

s o m e t rial strategy . Th at ad mission w as no t discernible f rom th e record d e v e l o p e d a tt r i a l , a n d b e c a u s e i tc o u l d h a v e e n t i t l e d a p p e l l a n tt o re l i e f i n v i e w o f Zepe da , the t rial cou rt a buse d its d iscretion by no t convening an e v iden tiaryhea ring on a ppe llant’s moti on. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le is sues two and four, sus tai n i ss ue one, and sta y acti on on is s u e t h re e . W e a ls o re ve rs e t h e ru li n g t h a ti m p l ic it ly d e n ie d (b y o p e ra t io n o f la w) app ellant ’s motio n for new trial, a bat e the a ppe al, and rem and t he ca use to the trial court
w it h direct ion s t hat i t c onv ene a hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial

. See Re yes v. State , 849 S.W .2d 812, 815-1 6 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1993) ( re mandin g the caus e for a hear ing on th e appel lan t’ s mot ion for ne w tr ial ); Pi

fer v. Sta te , 8 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 D is t.] 1995, pet. ref’d) ( abati ng and re mandin g the caus e for a hear ing st on th e c lai m thatthe Stat e w it hhel d ex cul pator y ev ide nce)

. Onc e the hear ing is hel d, t he trial court is orde red to execute fin dings of fact an d con clusions o f law add ressing the claim of ineffectiv e as si sta nce and c ause thos e f ind ing s a nd c oncl usi ons, al ong w it h a transc ri pti on of the hear ing , t o be filed w it h thi s c our t on or before Febr uar

y 15, 2008.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.