i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 89 0- CR Carlos R. VE GA , Appellant
v . STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 293rd Judi cial District Court, Z avala County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 05 -1 1- 02 98 8- Z CR Honora ble Cy nthia L . Muniz , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 10, 2009 AFF I RMED A j ur y c onvi cte d Ca rlos Ve g a

of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a

nd the tr ia l c ourt

se nte nc e d h im t o
e ig ht ye ars in p ri so n. On a pp e a l, V e g a

c omp la ins (1 ) t

he e vid e nc e is legal ly

and fa c tua lly insufficient to prove he used or exhibi ted a de adly

wea pon duri n g t he robbe ry , (2) ther e wa s insufficient c orrobor ation of accomplice testimony to support the conviction, and ( 3) the trial c ourt04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

1 ... V eg a or i g i n al l y ra i s ed a f ou r t h i s s u e, compl ai n i n g t h e t r i al cou r t er r ed i n f ai l i n g t o con du ct a h ea r i n g on t he vo l unt ari ness of hi s co nf ess i o n pri o r t o i t s ad m i ss i o n i nt o evi d ence. In res p o nse t o t his c o m p l ai nt , we ab at ed t he a p p e a l an d r e m a n d e d th e c a u se to th e tr ia l c o u rt to c o n d u c t t h e re q u ire d he a rin g . See T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t. 3 8 .2 2 § 6 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); Jac ks on v . D enno , 37 8 U
. S. 36 8 (19 6 4 ). T he t ri al co urt co m p l i ed wi t h our o rder and t he cl erk f i l ed a s u ppl eme n t c l erk’ s re cor d c on t ai n i n g f i n di n g s of

f ac t a n d c on cl u s i on s of l aw r el at i n g t o t h e v ol u n t ar i n es s of V ega ’ s conf

es s i on. A ccor di ng l y , V ega ’ s com pl ai nt about t he t r i al cour t ’ s f ai l ur e t o c onduct a v ol un t ar i nes s he ar i ng ha s b e e n re n d e re d m o o t. V e g a ha s m a d e no furth e r c o m p la int a b o u t t h e vo lun ta rin e ss o f his c o n fes sio n .

- 2- err ed in denying his reque st for a mistrial based on improper jury arguments by

the State. 1 We affir

m the trial cour

t’s judgme nt. B ACKG ROUND On J une 28, 2005, Ve g a and Robe rt Robles purcha sed g as fr om a Get- N-Go c onvenienc e store located i n Cry stal City , Texas. Shortly there afte r, t wo m en with cover ed face s enter ed the store
an d co m m i t t ed a ro b b ery . Ac co rd i n g t o s t o re cl erk I m el d a G u z m an , o n e o f t h e m en wa s h o l d i n g a g un. Although the men’s fa ces w ere cover ed, she te stified she identified Ve g a and his c o-def endant Robert Robles from their voices. Both men wer e well-known to Guzman beca use they wer e fr equent customers. Se ve ra l mo nth s a ft e r t

he ro bb e ry , Z ava la

County She ri ff Eu se bio Sa lin a s Jr. a sk e d Ve g a to come in and disc uss the robber y . Veg a eve ntually

g ave two written statements in which he admitted committing the robbe ry with Robles. I n his f irst statement, Veg a admitted enter ing the store to pay for g as just before committing the robbery and saw the clerk was alone. Veg a st ated he and Robles started jokingabout robbingthe store. The joking morphed into a plan. Veg a and Robles chang ed clothes, and V eg a admitted using a shirt t o cover his face and donningg loves to avoid leaving fi n ger p r i n t s . Bo t hm en en t er edt h e s t o re , b u tVe ga c l ai m edR o b l es wa s ca rryi n g a gu n . Ve ga claimed he burned the clothes and g loves he wor e duringthe robbe ry the next day . I n his second state me nt, g ive n mo re th an o ne month a ft e r t he fi rs t, V e g a

sa id t he g un us e d in the ro bb e ry

wa s a04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

2 ... A B B gu n is no t a fire a rm . See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 4 6 .0 1 (3 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); s e e a ls o A d a me v . S ta te , 6 9 S .W .3 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (h o ld ing tha t B B gu n is no t d e a d ly we a p o n p e r se ).

- 3- bla c k “ B B g un ” he ow ne d. Th e B B g un wa s turn e d o ve r t o th e sher if f’ s o ff ic e and pla c e d into evidenc e bef

ore the jury
. S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n h is f ir st g ro un d o f e rr or , V e g a a tta c ks the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the jur

y ’s fi nd ingthat a firea rm was use d or exhibit ed du ri ng the robbe ry . Veg a ar g ues his confe ssion demonstrates the
we a po n u se d w a s a

B B g un , n ot a

fi re arm . 2 We reviewthe evidenc e for legal suff

iciency by looking at all of the evide nce in the lig ht most favora

ble to the ver dict to determine whether any ra t i o n al t ri er of

fac t could have f

ound the essential ele ments of the off ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. Pr ible v . S tate , 175 S.W .3d 724, 729- 30 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied , 546 U.S. 96 2 (2 0 0 5). We resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony in favor of

the ver dict. Cur

ry v . S tate , 3 0 S
. W
. 3 d

3 9 4 , 4 0 6 ( T e x . C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 )
. In a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we view the evidenc e in a neutr al light a nd ask whe ther the e vidence supporting the verdic t is so weak or so a g ainst the gre at weight and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e as t o rende r t he verdict manifestly unjust. Grott i v . S

tate , 273 S.W .3d 273, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 8 )
. We c annot find the e vidence fac tually insufficient mer ely

beca use there are “re asonably

equal competingtheories of

causation.” Ste ad

ma n v . S tate , No. PD -1 3 1 1 -0 8 , 2009 WL838550, at *4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . Ap r. 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Go od ma n v . S tate , 66 S.W .3d 283, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). Duringher te stimony

Guzman told the j ury

she thoug ht the g un was “ rea l.” When she wa s shown the B B gun Veg a cla imed was the one used in the robbe ry , Guzman te stified the BB g un was not the one display ed duringthe robbe ry .04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

- 4- The State plac ed into evidenc e a vide o t ap e from a surveillanc e ca mera that captur ed the robber y . Sheriff Salinas testified the wea pon is plainly

visible during the repla

y of the tape . He wa s asked to viewthe videotape of the robbe ry during the trial. He testified the we apon used in the robber y , which appe ars on the vide otape, wa s not the BB g un g iven t o him by Veg a. S heriff Salinas testified to specific differ ence s betwee n the gun us ed in the robbery , as shown in the videotape , and the B B gun turned in by

Veg a. Co-defe ndant Robles testified at trial a nd told the jury the g un he used dur ing the robber y was “a r eal g un . ” Wh e n s h o w n th e B B g un , Ro b le s in s is te d it w a s n o t th e g un h e u s e d d uring the robber y , noting the c oloration was diff ere nt. Ba sed on t he evidence, a rational jury could have found t hat the gun used duringthe robbe ry
w a s a f i r e ar m , r a t h e r t h ant h e B B g u n V e g a c l a i m e d i n h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s th e g un u s e d i nth e r o b b e r

y. The e vidence , when view ed in a ne utral lig ht , i s n o t s o weak or so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e a s to re nd e r t he ve rd ic t ma

nif e stl y un jus t. A c c or din g ly , V e g a ’s fi rs t issue is overrule d. A C C OM PL I C E T E S T I M ONY Veg a next complains that, e x cluding acc omplice testimony , there was insuffic ient evidenc e to link him to the crime. SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.14 (V ernon 2005) (“Aconviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an a ccomplice unless corr oborate d by other e vidence tending to c onne c t th e de fe nd ant w iththe of fe ns e c omm itt e d; a

nd the c or ro bo ra tio n is no t su ff

ic ie nt i f i t
me re ly sh ow s th e c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e .” ) Whe n a sse ssi ng a c la im of ins uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to
corr oborate an accomplice, the non-ac complice e vidence need only “tend to conne ct” the de fenda nt to the crime; it is not required to c orrobor ate every element of

the offe nse. Se e J

ou be rt v . S

tate , 23504
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

- 5- S.W .3d 729, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under most circ umstances, a defe ndant’s admission or confe ssion is sufficie nt to corr oborate the ac complice testimony
. Se e id
. at n . 8 (c i t i n g Jack son v. Sta te , 516 S.W .2d 167, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)). Veg a make s no complaint about the voluntariness of his two confessions, wh ic h w ere enter ed into evidence and ther efor e bef ore the jury
. Whil e the confe ssions would be sufficie nt corrobor ation of Rob le s’ s te sti mony

by the mse lve s, the vic tima lso ide nti fi e d V ega as on e of the ro bb e rs . Acc ording ly , Veg a’s se cond issue is overr uled. D EN IAL O F M I S T RI AL Finally , Veg a complains the trial court erre d in failing to g rant a mistrial due to i mproper jur y arguments made by

the prosec utor. Proper jury argument is ge nera lly

limit ed to a summ ation of evidenc e, re asonable deductions from the evidence, answer to a rgument from opposing counsel, a nd pleas for law enf orce ment. Br own v . S

tate , 270 S.W .3d 564, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “[E]rror exis ts when fa cts not supported by the re cord a

re inter jected in the arg ument, but such er ror is not
reve rsible unless, in light of the record, the argument is extreme or manife stly improper.” Id. (citing Al lri dge v . S

tate , 7 6 2 S
. W
. 2 d 146, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). The pur portedly improper argument must be considere d in the context in which it i s made. Ga dd is v . S tate , 753 S.W .2d 396, 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision not t o g rant a m i strial under a n abuse of

discretion standard. Ha wk

ins v . S tate , 135 S.W .3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). But a mistrial is a re medy of last re sort. “Only in e x treme c ircumstance s, where the pre judice is incura

ble, will a mistrial be require d.” Id. Usually , an instruction to disreg ard the argument will cure a ny err or ca used by04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

- 6- improper argument. Di nk ins v . S tate , 894 S.W .2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. de nied , 5 16 U. S. 832 (1995). Veg a first c omplains about the S tate’s refe renc e to Vega ’s prior bur g lary conviction. Afte r counsel objec ted to the State’s re fer ence to the convicti o n , the prosec utor and de fense counsel
en gage d i n a co l l o qu y wi t h t h e co u rt ab o u t th e us e of th e co n v i ct i o nan d th e ap p l i cab l e l aw . Ve ga contends the St ate’ s ref

ere nce to the la

w conc erne d prese rvation of e rror in the context of improper jury arguments, and ar g ues t he S tate was attempting to show the jur y defe nse counse l did not know the law. I t a

pp e ars , h ow e ve r, the State wa s r e fe rr ingno t to th e law o n p re se rv a tio n o f e rr or , b ut t o the law a pplicable to the use o f ev i d en ce a dmitted in the absence of a limiting instruction. See Ga rc ia v . S tate , 887 S.W .2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that evidence admitted without a limit ing instruc tion “become s part of the g ener al evidence in the case and may be used a s p r o o f to th e f u ll e xte n t o f

it s r a ti o n a l p e r s u a s iv e p o w e r . ”), a brogated in part on other grounds , Ha mm oc k

v . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 889, 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). When the State cross-e x amined Ve g a , it a sk e d h im a

bo ut h is p ri or

fe lony c on vic tio n f

or bu rg lary . V e g a ’s c ouns e l di d n ot r e qu e st a li miting i nstruction and none w as g iven sua sponte by the c ourt . N or

did the jur y c ha rg e c on ta in
an y s u c h in s tr

u c ti o n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o n v ic ti o n w a s b e f o r e th e ju r y f o r a ll p ur poses, and the State’s re fer ence to the conviction was not improper argument. See id. Moreove r, the State’s r ema rk s ap p ear to have be en in re sponse to defe nse counse l’s
argume nt. Duri nghis c los ing , d e fe ns e c ouns e l a c kn ow le dg e d V e g a ha d s ign e d tw o c on fe ssi on s. I n an atte mpt

to e xpla in why

an inno c e nt p e rs on

wo uld c on fe ss t o a

c ri me he did

no t c omm it, defe nse counse l argued Veg a wa s a y oung person not fa miliar with the justice sy stem. Acc ording t o d ef en s e c o u n s el , wh en t h e p o l i ce p ro m i s ed Ve ga h e co u l d l ea v e i f h e s i gn edth e c o n fe s s i o n s , Ve ga04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

- 7- signe d not beca

use he c ommi t t ed t h e cr ime, but beca use he thoug ht it would bring a n end to the matter. The State’s re fer ence to the prior convic tion was a response to this argument. The e vidence of Ve g a’s pr ior involvement in the criminal jus tice sy stem for a differ ent crime befor e the ex ecution of eit h er s tatement demonstrates Veg a wa s not someone completely unfamiliar with the c riminal jus tic e sy ste m. Veg a next contends the State e n g ag ed in improper a rgument when the pr osecutor told the jur y , “ An d a s I

tol d th e sh e ri ff un de r c ro ss- e xami natio n or un de r e xami natio n wh e n I wa s a sk inghim questions, we don’t lie a

nd we don’ t cheat as long as I ’m District Attorney .” This comment wa s based on a

n exchang e that occ urre d during the State’s re direc t ex amination of the sher iff. When Ve ga’ s at t o rn ey h ad cr o s s -e x am i n ed t h e s h er i ff , th e at t o rn ey s u gges t edt h e s h er i ff h adt ri ck edVe ga into confessingby

lying to him. On redirect, the prosec utor asked the sheriff whether his office ever lie d, tr ic ke d, or

ma de thi ng s up to ob ta in a c on fe ssi on

fr om a su sp e c t. T he sh e ri ff

state d it did no t. When the State ref

err ed to the exchang e duringclosing argument, Veg a’s attorney objected, a

nd the trial court sustained the objection, instructed the jury t o d i s re gard the statement, but denied the reque st for a mistrial. The State’s c omment to the jury was mad e in re sponse ar g ument by defe nse counse l, who
a tta c ke d th e sh e ri ff’s c re dib ili ty , a nd the re su lti ngc on fe ssi on s, duri nghis c los ingargume nt. I t is troubling that the prosec utor interjec ted himself into the response by using the word “we” rathe r than
r e f e r r i n g o n l y t o t h e s h e r i f

f , b u tt h e S t a t e ’ s c o m m e n t s w e r e b a s e d o ne v i d e n c e b e f

o r e th e j u r

y. Acc ording ly , the comments we re not improper
. Ev e n i f o n e o r b o t h ar g u m e n t s w e r e f o un d t o b e i mp r o p e r , th e ar g u m e n t s w e r e no t so pr e jud ic ia l a s to be on e of

tho se e xtre me c ir c ums ta

nc e s wh ic h re qu ir e d a mis tr ia l. Wh ile in t he fi rs t04
- 07
- 00 89 0- CR

- 8- instance the trial court did not g ive t he jury an ins truction to disreg ard the comment, i t provided the functional e quivalent by telling the jur

y Veg a’s pr ior conviction c ould be consider ed for impeachme nt purposes only ; in essence telling the jur y to disreg ard th e S t ate’ s argument. I n the
se c on d in sta

nc e , th e tr ia l c ourt

sp e c if ic a lly ins tr uc te d t h e j u r y to d isr e g ard

the pr os e c uto r’ s argume nt. We hold the court’s instructions c ured any err or and overr ule this last issue. See Di n kins , 894 S.W .2d at 357. C ONCL US I ON The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Do No t Pu

bli sh