### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 05-00349 -CR

M at th e w Shane Co x , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 04- 240- K3 68 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES E. MI LLER JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant, Matthew Shane Cox, g u il ty of eng ag ing in or g anized criminal

a c tiv ity wi th t he a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult of Sha wn F or re st a nd se nte nc e d h im t o 5 0 y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. See Tex. P en al C o d e An n. §§ 71.02 (West Supp. 2007) (org anized criminal ac tivity ), 22.02 (We st Su pp . 2 00 7) (a g g ra

va te d a ssa ult ). I n f our iss ue s, a

pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa ctually

insufficient to support his conviction and that the court erre d by ref using to qua sh the indictment. We affirm.

Bac kgr ound

I n the ear ly

hours of July

22, 2002, Shawn McCoy was a woken by g unshots outsi de his home and obser

ved a w hite pickup truck a nd red c ar spe eding down his street. Ge org etown Poli c e O f f ic e r s s to p p e d th e s e v e h ic le s ; K im e la T r u mp w a s dr iv in g th e w h it e tr u c k , and Shawn2

For rest wa s driving the red c ar. For rest told of

fice rs that he ha d been shot. His fing er w as injured and ther e we re nume rous bullet holes in the body and windshield of the r ed ca r. Off icer s beg an

se arc hin g the are a ne ar Mc Coy ’s re sid e nc e . At 7:0 0 a .m. , Sha ne Sa un de rs , wh os e dr ive r’ s li c e ns e had bee n found in the white pickup truck, a nd Warren Confe r we re f

ound walking in the suspect-a rea and take n into custody . Both men w ere sweating a nd cover ed with dirt and g rass burr s. Police found two guns, a Ruge r and a Romarm, in the white pickup truc k, in addition to mag azines and ammunition for ea ch of the rifles. Police a lso found a rifle case that contained a le tte r a dd re sse d to a

pp e lla nt a t Co nf

e r’ s a dd re ss. F ina lly , p oli c e fo un d th e bo x for a Ta ur us 9- mm pistol i n th e v e h ic le

. Po li c e late r d is c o v e r e d th is T a u r u s p is to l, a s w e ll a s a G lo c k h an d g u n , near McCoy ’s re sidence

. For ensic firea rms examiner Calvin Story testified that at lea st three diff ere nt g uns were used in the shooting.

Test i m o n y re veale d that Trump, Saunder s, Confer, a nd For rest all belong ed to the Ary an B rotherhood of

Texas g ang . Trump was the girlfrie nd of W illiam David May nard, one of the leade rs in the g ang . Appellant wa s arr ested on an unre lated wa rra nt when Te x as Rang er L indeman went to pe rfor

m a sear ch of Confer’ s residenc e. L indeman testified that f rom monitoring jail phone calls, he le arne d that appellant wa s a four th indiv i d u al i n v o l v ed in the shooting and an

as s o ci at e i nt h e ga n g.

Appellant admitted to police that he was prese nt w hen For rest was shot and that he fired shots fr om his wea

pon. He claimed, howe ver, that all his shots wer e fire d at the g round rather tha n at F or re st.3 Suf fi ciency of the Evidence Th e ju ry con vic te d a

pp e lla nt o f t he fi rs t- de g re e fe lony

of fe ns e of e ng a g ingin org anized criminal ac tivity with ag g ravated assault as the underly ing f elony offe nse. In his first and second issues, a

ppellant ar g ues that t he evidence is leg ally and factually insufficient to show that he dir e c tly or a s a

p art y “ c o m m i t t e d

t h e c r i m e o f

a g g r a v a t e d

a s s a u l tn o r i s t h e r e s u f

f i c i e n tc r e d i b le evidenc e to prove Appellant wa s part of a combination or a me mber of a crimi n al s t ree t ga

ng .” Thus, appellant challeng es the sufficie ncy as to the under ly ing of

fense (ag g ravated assault) a nd as to his participation (in combination or as me mber of a criminal stree t ga

ng ). I n revie wing the l eg al s ufficie ncy of the e vidence supporting a criminal convic tion, we view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t and ask whether a rational trier

of fa c t c ou ld have fo un d the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a re a so nab le d ou bt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hoo per v. Sta te , 2 14 S.W. 3d 9, 13 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007). In revie wing the fa ctual suff iciency of the e v i d en ce , we c onsider all the e vidence

e qu a lly , in c lud ingt e s t i m o ny by de fe ns ive wi tne sse s and

e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g a lte rn a tiv e hy

po the se s. Se e Cle wis v . S

tat e , 92 2 S.W. 2d 12 6, 12 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Or on a v . S tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. A p p . —

A u s ti n1 9 9 2 , n o p e t. )

. A lt h o u g h w e g iv e d

u e d e f e r e n c e to th e f

a c t- f in d er’ s deter minations, particularly

those involving the w eight an d cre dibilit y of the e vidence , we may disag ree with the result to preve nt a manife st injust ice. Johnson v . S tat e , 2 3 S. W.2 d 1 , 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cai n v . S

tat e , 95 8 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Ev id ence i s fa ctua lly ins uf fi c ie nt i f t he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k a s to make the fi nd ingof g uil t c le a rl y wrongor manife stly

unjust, or if the verdic t is agai n s t t he g rea t weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the4

available evidenc e. W

at so n v. St ate , 2 04 S.W. 3d

40 4, 41 4- 15 , 4 17 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. The standard is the same for direc t a nd circ umstantial e vidence , and the State may prove its ca se solely

throug h circ umstantial evidence

. Ba rn es v. St ate , 62 S.W .3d 288, 297 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). The jury

is the sole judge of the we ight an d cr ed i bility of witness testimony

. Id. at 298. The f act- finder ma

y acc ept or re

ject any or all of a

witness’s testimony , may

drawrea sonable infe renc es fr om t h e ev idence , and must resolve evidentiar y conflicts. Id.

Un de rly ing

Of fe ns e–A gg

ra v ate d A ssa ult The unde rly ing f

elony offe nse as alleg ed in the State’s indictment was the a g g ravated assault of For

rest. The jury was presented with two theories as to the manner of the c ommissi on of thi s und e rl y ingof

fe ns e ; eit her app e lla

nt ( 1) int e nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y

c a us e d b od ily injury to Forr est and used o r ex h i bited a dea dly wea pon, a fire arm; or ( 2) intentionally or knowing ly

threatened For

rest with imminent bodily injury and used or exhibi ted a de adly wea pon,

a firea rm. The jury

char g e included a

n instruction on party

culpability

. See T ex. P enal Code Ann. § 7.02(a )(2) (West 2003).

The a ppellant ar g ues that t h er e is no evidenc e that (1) he fire d a g un or threatened For rest, (2) he “a cted with the intent that F orre st be fired upon,” and (3) he “solicited, enc ourag ed, direc ted, aided, or

attempted to aid anothe r per son to threaten or shoot at Forr est.” I n his c ustodial state ment, appellant admitted to be ing prese nt dur ing the crime a nd g oing to F orre st’s door and luring him outside. Trump testified that appe llant, Confer, a nd Saunders all beg an shooting at For

rest. Appellant claims Trump’s testimony , pursuant to a plea ba rg ain, has5

no probative va lue. However, Tr ump’s testimony

is not the only

evidenc e linking a

ppellant to the of fe ns e . Ap pe lla

nt a dmi tte d to purc ha sin g the Ta ur us g un and sw a pp ingit w ithSa

un de rs pr ior

to the For rest shooting . Police rec overe d a g un box and instruction manual f or a Ta urus g un from the wh ite pic ku

p, and bo th a pp e lla nt’ s a nd Sa un de r’ s f ing e rp ri nts we re fou nd on the manu a l. Appellant’s fi n gerp rints were also on the truck. I n taped jailhouse te lephone c alls, appellant a nd Saunders discusse d th ei r at t em p t s to avoid being caug ht and wiping down the we apons used, a nd

a pp e lla nt s a id t hat he did no t kn ow wh e the r F or re st s ur viv e d th e atta c k, and

that he ha d n e e de d a ll the bullets in his w eapon to c arr y out the shooting. Appellant admitted that he had a 9-mm firea

rm in his possession during the shooti n g which he later thre w in the woods. Appe llant also admitted that he fire d shots but claimed he fire d them at the ground and not at Forrest be cause he fe are d for his own safe ty . Howeve r, the ballistics e x pert testified that it appear ed only one shot had be en fire d at the g round. The e vidence and re asonable infere nces dr awn ther efr om are sufficie nt for the jur y to have concluded bey ond a reasonable doubt that appellant wa s g uilty as either a par ty or a pr incipal of t he off e n s e o f a g g r a v a te d

a s s a u lt

. F u rth e r

mo r e , th e ju

r y w a s f r e e to s if t a n d w e ig h T r

u mp ’s t e s t i m o n y an d

m a k e j u d g m e n t s a

b o u ti t s v a l u e b a s e d o n t h e j u r y’ s e v a l u a t i o no f

h e r c r e d i b i l i t y, mot ive to fa

br ic a te , and c on tr a dic tio ns or inc on sis te nc ie s. Tr ump ’s te sti mony wa s no t the on ly evidenc e of a

ppellant’s par

ticipation in the crime of a g g ravated assault. Eve n wh en v i ew ed in a neutra l manner, the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support a fi n d i n g bey ond a re asonable doubt that appellant wa s g uilty

of ag g ravated assault.6

Participation in Combination or Membership in Gang

The jury was pre sented with two theorie s of t h e co nspiracy —appellant c ommitt ed ag g ravated assault either

with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or as a member of a c riminal street g ang . The appellant argues that there is no evidence he intended or was involved in more tha n one cr iminal episode, that the evidence proves he was not a me mber of the g ang , and that the only criminal ac tivity

he eng ag ed in with Trump, Confer , and Saunder s was t h e F o rr es ts h o o t i n g.

To e sta bli sh that a de fe nd ant e ng a g e d in or g anize d c ri min a l a c tiv ity , th e State mus t prove more t han an ag ree ment to jointly commit a single crime. Ngu y e n v . S tat e , 1 S.W .3d 694 , 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Althoug h the State is not require d to prove c ommissi on of more tha n one of fe ns e , it mus t pr ov e c on tin

uit y or that th e de fe nd ant i nte nd e d to e sta bli sh , ma int a in, or

pa rt ic ipate in a g ro up of thr e e or mor e and that th e me mbe rs int e nd e d to wo rk tog e the r i n a

c on tin uin g c ours e of cr iminal activities. Id.

Detec tive Volk testified about the struc ture a nd m em bership of the Ary an Br o t h erh o o d

gan g. He t es t i fi edt h at ap p el l an tan d S au n d er s we re p ro s p ec t s o r a s s o ci at es o f t h e ga n g. Appellant wa s living with Confer at the time of the incident. Appellant admitted that he tr aded guns with Saunders, that he kne w the g ang methamphetamine cook, and that he was picked up f rom the shooting sce ne by

Confer’ s g irlfriend. A

ppellant also admitted to being an associate member of the g ang . Trump t estified that appellant made and sold methamphetamine for the Ary an B rotherhood, t h at h e b u rgl ar i z eda v eh i cl e a tC o n fe r’ s re qu es t , an d t h at h e p ro cu re d w e ap o n s fo r t h e ga n g, including the Taurus gun that appellant admitted to buying a nd swapping with Saunders bef ore the For rest shooting

.7 Vi e we d in

the lig ht mos t f

a vo ra ble to t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t, w e ho ld t

hat th e e vid e nc e is leg ally sufficie nt to show that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. F urthermor e, appellant’ s challeng e to the fa ctual suff iciency of the evidence is based on the credibility of witnesses, pa rticularly Trump, and those de terminations

are left for t h e jury

. See Barnes , 62 S.W .3d at 298. We further conclude that viewed in a neutra l lig ht, the e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s us ta in t

he jur y ’s g uil ty ve rd ic t. We overrule appellant’ s first and sec ond issues.

M ot ion to Qua sh I ndic tm e nt I n his third and fourth issues pre sented, a ppellant cha lleng es the suff iciency of the indictment, claiming that the trial court erre d by ref using to qua sh the indictment and that the vag ueness of

the i n d ictment violated the Six th and Four teenth Amendme nts to the United States Constit ution. I n both issues, appellant argues that the indictment f ailed to “ specific ally identify the criminal ac tiviti es of the c ombination or street g ang .” We re view the c o u rt ’s ruling de novo. Sta te v . M

off , 1 54 S.W. 3d

59 9, 60 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Y an es v . S tat e , 149 S.W .3d 708, 709 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. ref ’d.). A def endant m u s t b e gi ven notice be fore trial of the nature a nd cause of the

acc u s at i o n against hi m with sufficient cla rity and deta il to enable him to anticipate the State’ s

ev i d en ce and pre pare a prope r def ense. Ga rc ia v . S

tat e , 9 8 1 S. W. 2 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 5 ( T e x. Cr im . App. 1988). He re, th e indi ctment trac ked the languag e of pe nal code section 71.02, which de fines eng ag ing in or g anized criminal ac tivity as: (1) a per son, (2) with intent to establish, maintain or pa rt ic ipate in a

c omb inatio n o r a s a

me mbe r o f a c ri min a l stre e t ga ng , ( 3) c omm its or

c on sp ir e s to8

commit (4) a listed of

fense

. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 71.02 (West Supp. 2007). W hen an ind ic tmen t tr acks the langua g e of the a pp ro pr ia te su

bs e c tio ns of

pe na l c od e se c tio n 7 1. 02 , it adequately

char g es the de fenda

nt with the offense of eng ag ing in or g anized crime and the tria l court does not err

in refusingto quash the indictment. G e m o e t s v . S t ate , 116 S.W .3d 59, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, no p et.). Further more, to prove that a def endant participated i n a criminal combination, the S tate mus t prove that he participated with two or more other pe rsons in a continuing course of cr iminal activities. Ngu y e n v . S ta te, 1 S

. W .3d 694, 697 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Th e State is r e qu ir e d ne ith e r to a lle g e the name s of the oth e r pe rs on s in the combination in the indictment nor to alleg e, beyond the eleme nts of the offe nse, additional over t acts committed by the defe ndant in f urthera nce of the c ombination. State v. Duk e , 865 S.W .2d 466, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We overrule appellant’ s third and fourth issues.

Conclusion We affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

15, 2008 Do Not Publish