NO. 07-08 -031 1-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 MA Y19, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CH RI STOPH ERL. LAN GS, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 5-41 1,0 41; HON. JIM BOB DARNEL L, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Chr is topher L. Lang s (a ppel lan t) appeal s his conv icti on for robber y by co ntendi ng tha t the evidence was legally and factu ally insuf f icient to sustain it. T hatis, the evidence pur por tedl y fail ed to i ll ust ra te t hat h e c ommitt ed th e c ri me, that the c ri me w as commi tted in Lub bock Cou nty, that th e taking w as w ithou t conse nt, or tha t the v ictim suf fered bod ily inj ur y dur ing the course of the th eft. W e aff ir m the jud g ment.2

Author it y T he sta nda rds by w hich w e rev iew a ch allenge to the su f

f iciency of

t he evidence a re w ell -s ettl ed and need no t be ex pla ine d. Theyca n be found in Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) , W ats on v . St ate, 20 4 S. W .3 d 40 4 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2006) , and thei r prog eny . Next, to c onv ict app ell ant o f rob b er y per the ind ictment at ba r, the Stat e w as o b l i g a t e d t o p ro v e , a mo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a ta th e ftw a s c o mm i tt e d a n d t h a td u r i n g t h e t h e ft the a cc used int enti onal ly , k nowin g ly , or reck les sl y

ca used bodi ly

i nju ry to another

. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 2 9

. 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e fto c c u rs w h e n a person unla wf u lly a ppropr iat es proper ty w it h the i ntentto depr iv e the ow ner of it

. Id. §31.03( a) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). Next, th e app ropriation is unla wf ul if it occu rs w ithou t the ow ner’s effect iv e c onsen t. Id. §31.03( b) (1 ). F ina ll y , t he el ements of a cri me may be e sta bli shed throug h di re ct or

ci rc umstan ti al e vide n ce or reason abl e i nferenc es ar is ing from t hat ev ide nce. W

iggins v. St ate, 255 S.W .3d 766 , 771 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 08, no pe t.); Rob er son v. State, 16 S. W .3d 156 , 167 (Tex. App. –Au stin 20 00, pet. ref ’d). Appl icati on of Aut hor it y The record before us i ll ust ra tes thata b la ckm a le w ear ing a w hit e “ hoodi e” approache d a g ro up of pe opl e re tur nin g to thei r job s a t a loc al hig h s chool after l unch. As he approache d the m, he g ra bbed t he purse bei ng hel d by a woman and ra n away w it h i t. As a result of

t he purse b eing grabb ed, t he w om an fell and bruised h er knee s. So too did s h e t e ll a n o f

f ic e r t h a tsh e su f

fe re d p a i n i n h e r s h o u ld e r. No n e t h e le s s , sh e a ro s e , ga ve chas e, an d y ell ed for him to s top.3

Othe rs in the area eithe r saw the event or sa w

a b lack ma n w earing a w hite h ood ie runn ing w ith a pu rse. T his ma n stop ped in f ront of one w itness lon g eno ugh for the wi tne ss to s ee hi s face. That w it ness identi fied the indi v idu al as appel lan t and then eng ag ed i n the pursui t as w ell

. The appel lan t was fo llow ed as he ran s ev eral blo ck s. At ti mes, the pursuers l ostsi g ht of him, but each time they did, they

woul d s oon s py

a bl ack man w it h a w hit e hoodi e r unni ng and re sume t he c hase. D ur ing one sti nt, the hooded man was seen ru nni ng i nto a n al ley w it h the purse and ex it ing w it hout it

. E ve n t u a ll y, t h e m a n wa s fo u n d u n d e r a se to f st a irs in a n e a rb y a p a rt m e n tco m p le x. W hen enco unt ered , he w as foun d to be w inde d. He also aske d his pursu er if h e cou ld sit dow n s inc e he w as ti re d. This i ndi v idu al w as lat er ar re ste d by

the pol ic e, an d a search of his perso n disclosed tha t he had $23 on his perso n. T he wom an w ho o wn e d t h e purse testif ied th at ab out$23 to $25 w as missing f ro m i twh en it w as discovered in a yard adj acentto the c ourse tak en by appel lan t. As previou sly

men tione d, th e w itness b efore w hom the ho ode d ma n mo me nta rily stop ped , testif ied th at the m an and a ppe llant w ere one and the sam e. So to o did th e v ictim tes ti fy that the man w ho the pol ic e ar re ste d w as the person w ho had t aken her purse. The ar re sti ng off ic er

tes ti fied th at t he person w ho he ar re ste d i denti fied hi msel f as “ Mr . Lan g s.” The foreg oin g i s s ome ev ide nce from w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld co ncl ude, bey ond reaso nab le dou bt, th at ap pellan t w as the hoo ded man w ho to ok the purse. So too cou ld suc h a j ur

y co ncl ude, bey ond reason abl e doubt , t hat t he purse w as tak en w it hout the cons ent o f its ow ner . Indeed, thatthe purse w as tak en th ro ug h forc e, t hat t he person w ho t o o ki tf le d t h e sc e n e , a n d t h a tt h e p u rs e o wn e r b o t h ye ll e d fo r h im t o st o p a n d t h e n ga ve chase cann ot pe rmit an y othe r reaso nab le inferen ce. And , to the e xt entthatthe te rm4

bodi ly i nju ry ( for pur poses of the robber y ) encompas ses “ phy si cal pai n, i ll ness or any im p a ir m e n to f

p h ys ic a l c o n d ition,” T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §1. 07(a )(8) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08), the b ru is ing on t he v icti m’s kn ees (w hic h i ndi cat es broken blo od v ess els ) and he r shoul der pai n w as suffici ent e v ide nce to pe rmi t t he j ur y to hol d, ag ain bey ond reason abl e doubt , t hat appel lan t c aused anot her to suffer bodi ly

i nju ry dur ing the theft. As for th e ma tt e r o f v enue, two w it ness es tes ti fied th at t he hi g h s chool and surroun ding area w ere i n Lub bock County. Furthe rmore , no one objec t e d t o their te st im o n y . Thus, itw as admitted for al l pur poses . Kleinv. Sta te, 273 S. W .3d 2 97, 3 18 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8). I tm a y we ll b e t h a tt h e wit n e s s e s m o m e n t a ri ly lo s t s ig h t o f a p p e ll a n t a s h e ra n a wa y. But , t h e y w o u l d a l w a y s e n c o u n t e r h i m a g a i n . A n d , w e a re c i t e d t o n o ev ide nce that someone other

than appel lan t w as bla ck , ru nni ng throug h the area w hil e w ear ing a w hit e hoo die a n d c a rrying a purse, and foun d w inde d hidin g und er stairs. And, th at th e v ictim maynot hav e tol d the off ic ers, at t he ti me of the i nci dent, ab o u t o n e o r another of her sufferin g s c aused by

appel lan t’ s a g g re ss iv e act s impl y rais ed a cred ib ili ty is sue for th e ju ro rs to re so lve. Co n tra ry to a p p e lla n t’ s con te n ti o n s, n o n e o f th o se th in gs were en o u gh t o ca ll t h e ve rd ic tin t o qu e s t io n , m u c h le s s re n d e r it m a n ife s t ly u n ju s t

. Co n s e qu e n t ly, we conc lud e tha t t he j ur

y ’s dec is ion has the suppo rtof both leg all y and factually

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Appel lan t’ s i ss ues are ov er ru led , and the jud g ment i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.