NO. 07-08 -010 9-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 A MA Y14, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ MILO CRADALE W ILL IAMS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 55, 244- D; H ON ORABLE DO N EM ER SON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Mi lo Cradal e W il li ams, appeal s his conv icti on for the offense of murder and sentenc e of

life impri sonmentin the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m. Backg ro und On Apri l 19, 2001, a T oot’ n T otum cle rk w as shotand ki ll ed duri ng the ear ly mor nin g hours w hil e wor ki ng at the A m ar il lo, Tex as sto re . Dur ing the ensui ng i nv est ig ati on, t he2

pol ic e s poke to w it ness es, incl udi ng All is on Reed, thatdescr ibe d a four door se dan- ty pe v ehi cl e i n th e a re a a n d a tall bl ack man w ho walk ed by

w hil e the w it ness es w ere at a f riend’s ho use n ear the store. T he cri me scene inv estigators gathe red a spe nt bu llet shell cas ing as well as the sto re se cur ity v ide otape show ing the ki ll er w ear ing panty hose ov er hisface and ca rr

y ing a s mall handg un. No w eapon was fo u n d a t the s cene nor i n the imm edia te vi cinity. In the course of the investigation, p olice of f icers spoke w ith Noto rry Graves w ho viewed a pho to lineu p an d id e n t if ie d S edrick Ry an a s a possible suspe ct in the murd er of

t h e clerk. Th e po lice pursue d the lead an d eventu ally issued an arrest w a rrant for Sedr ic k Ry an. In s er v ing the ar re st w ar ra nt up on Ry an, t he pol ic e g athered ev ide nce from Ry an’ s home i ncl udi ng hai r sampl es and a pai r of panty hose but d id not fin d a weapon. After

i nter v iew in g R yan and furt her i nv est ig ati ng Grav es’ s s tatementpl aci ng Ryan atthe cr ime sc ene, the p oli ce deter mined that Ryan was not involved in t he murder and rele ased him. N o oth er su spects w ere dev elo ped and the cas e went u nsol v ed. In 20 06, S arg ent D ock er y beg an rev iew ing co ld cas e files and re v iewed th e murder of this T oot ’n T otu m clerk. In revi ewi ng the evidence , Dockery discovered tha t app ellant ’s name had come up dur ing the ini ti al invest ig ati on but t he l ead had not been i nv est ig ated further

. Doc ker

y rei nter v iewed w it ness es and disc ov ered that appell ant h ad been i n the area of t h e Toot’ n Totum on the n ig ht of the murder

. In s peaki ng w it h D .J. Gol den, Docke ry le a rned thatGolde n, Cha rlie M eza, and app ellanthad stopp ed n ear the To ot’n T otu m to pick up an oth er f riend. W hile the y waited for this f riend, app ellantlef t the v ehicle and was g one app ro x imat ely fiv e mi nutes

. W hen app ell ant retur ned t o the ca r, appel lan t ins tr uct ed th e oth ers t o “g o, go , go” ev en thoug h theydid not m eet w it h the f ri end they had3

p la n n e d o n m e e t in g. Do c k e ry a ls o sp o k e wit h Me za wh o co n f ir m e d G o ld e n ’s st o ry. Additi o n a ll y , M ez a tol d D ock er y thatappel lan t had admi tted to t ry ing to ro b the conv eni ence sto re . Next, Doc ker y sp oke wit h D anni e M ae Go lde n, w ho was dati ng appel lan t atthe ti me of the m u rd e r. Ac cordin g to Dan nie , s he purchas ed c lot hin g for ap pe l l an t on o c c as i on a nd s pe c i fi c al l y rec og ni z ed t he c l ot hi ng o f t he mu rde rer a s t he s am e ty pe of cl othi ng thatsh e had purchas ed for appel lan t. D ur ing the col d case re v iew , O ff ic er J im m y Ri fe n b e rg re vie we d t h e vid e o t a p e a n d n o t ic e d t h a tt h e m u rd e re r a p p e a re d t o h a ve a bi rt hmark

behi nd hi s r ig ht ea r. Ri fenberg then re v iewed a photog ra ph of appel lan t and obse rv ed th at ap pellan t also ha d a m ark beh ind his rig ht ea r. Fi nally, D ockery was ab le to v er ify t h ro u gh Me z a’sst atement that appel lan t woul d hav e had acc ess to a four door sedan si mil ar

to the o ne obs er

v ed atthe cr ime sc ene. W it h the additio n al infor mati on obtai ned dur ing the col d cas e re v iew , t he pol ic e ar re ste d and charg ed appe ll ant w it h the mu rder. At t ri al, the Stat e i nformed t he tr ial co urt t hat i t w is hed t o furt her dev elo p the conne cti on of appell ant w it h a sedan simi lar to the c ar

obs er v ed by w it ness es on th e ni g ht of the murder

. Me z a tes ti fied th at, on th e ni g ht of the m urder , they were i n a Thunde rb ird; addi ti onal ly , R eed was show n a p hotog ra ph of a Thunderbi rd and tes ti fied th at i t was si mil ar to t h e ve h icl e sh e obs er v ed on the n ig ht of the murder

. At thi s p oin t, the S tate w is hed t o presentev ide n ce that appel lan t had ac ces s t o a Thunde rb ird. To do s o, t he Stat e s oug ht t o ente r te st im ony from D ock er

y thata F ord Thunder bird was used by app ellant , Mez a, an d Gold en to participat e in a b ank rob bery approximate ly two w eeks after the murder

. Ap pel lan t obj ect ed to any menti on of the subs eq uent bank ro bber y but4

his obje ction was ov erruled. Based on th e test imo ny of the wi tne sses an d po lice of f icers as w ell as the p hysical evidence, the jury returne d a verdict of g ui lt y a n d t he trial cou rt sent enced appel lan t t o c onfinement fo r life in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. App ellantraises t hree issu es on app eal cont end ing th at the : 1) t rial cou rt e rred in per mitt ing referenc es to ap pel lan t’ s p arti ci pati on i n the sub seq uent bank robber y i nv olv ing a Ford T hun derb ird into evidence beca use such evidence was of fered to prove app ellant ’s chara cte r

a s a c r i mi na l ; 2)t r i al c ou rt er red i n pe r mi tt i ng t he refe ren c es t o ap pellant’s par ti ci pati on i n the bank

robber y by dr iv ing a F ord Thunder bird because su ch tes ti mony w as mo re p rejudicial tha n prob ative; a nd 3) e v iden ce w as factu ally in suf f icient to supp ort th e c on v i cti on for

mu rde r . W e affi r m. Ev ide nce of Other

Bad Act s Tex as Rul e of Ev ide nce 404( b) prohi bit s t he admi ss ion of ev ide nce of extraneous of fense s comm itted bythe de fend antfor the purpose of provi ng that, on the occasion in q uest ion , t he defendant act ed in confor mity w it h the charact er demonst ra ted by the other bad acts. See S ant ellan v . Sta te, 939 S .W .2d 1 55, 1 68 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 199 7). T he rule als o prov ide s e x cept ion s t o thi s p ri nci ple su ch as w hen ev ide nce is admitted to s how proof of mot iv e, oppo rtunity, inten t, prep aratio n, plan, know ledge, i den tity, or abse nce of mistake or ac ci dent. I d. If the op ponent of extraneous offense ev ide nce obj ect s o n the g ro unds that the ev ide nce v iol ates Rule 404(b) , the proponen t must sati sfythe tr ial co urt t hat t he extraneous offense ev ide nce has re levance apar t from it s c haract er

co nformity

v alu e. See5

id. ; M ontg omery

v . State, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 87 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 990)( op. o n reh'g ). I f the tr ial co urt det er mines the ev ide nce has no rel ev ance apar t f ro m suppo rt ing the conc lus ion that the d efendant acted in confor mity w it h his charact er , it is abs olu tel y i nadmis si ble

. See San tellan , 939 S.W .2d at 169 . On the othe r hand , extraneou s of fe n s e evidence is adm issible if

the pro pon entpersua des th e trial court tha t the extrane ous o f fense ev iden ce t e n d s t o e s t a b li s h so m e e le m e n t a l o r e vid e n t ia ry fa cto r t h a titre b u t s a d e fe n s ive t h e o ry. See i d. a t 1 6 8 -6 9; M ontg omery , 810 S.W .2d a t 387 -3 88. The tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion of w het her oth er bad act evidence h a s r e levance ap art f rom ch aracte r conformity is re v iewed for an abu se of di sc re ti on. See G uz man v . St ate, 955 S. W .2d 8 5, 89 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) (t he s tandard of rev iew on a tr ial co urt’ s e v ide nti ar y r uli ng i s a n abu se of discretion sta nda rd); Montgom ery , 810 S .W .2d a t 394 . As long as the trial court's ru li ng was w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement, there i s n o abus e of di sc re ti on and th e tri a l co u rt 's rul in g w ill be up h e ld

. Sa n te lla n , 93 9 S. W .2 d a t 16 9

. On ce th e tri a l ju d ge has ru led on w hether

t h e e vide n ce is rele v ant b ey ond i ts charact er co nformity

v alu e, he has ru led on t he full extent of the oppo nent' s R ule 404( b) obj ect io n . Id. The op ponent m u st th e n m a ke a f u rt h e r o bje ct io n b a se d o n Ru le 40 3 , in ord e r fo r th e tri a l ju d ge t o we igh the proba tiv e an d prejud icial v alue of the evid e n c e . I d

. T o exclude extraneo us of fense ev ide nce under

R ule 403, the opponent must spec ific all y re q uesta R ule 403 ru li ng . Se e Mo ntg omery , 810 S.W .2d a t 388

. In th e insta nt case , app ellantconte nds th at the trial court erred in allow ing D ockery and Golde n to tes ti fy about appel lan t’ s part ic ipa ti on in a subs eq uent bank ro bber y cl aimi ng that the S tate w as seek ing to admitthe extraneous offense as ev ide nce of appell ant’ s b adAppel lan t preser v ed hi s o bje cti on byreq uest ing and re cei v ing a r unni ng obj ect ion 1 t o b o t h G o ld e n ’s a n d Do c k e ry’ s t e s t im o n y o f a p p e ll a n t ’s p a rt ic ip a t io n in t h e ro b b e ry. 6 charact er . Howev er , t he St ate s oug ht D ock er y ’s tes ti mony

bec ause “ [t] hat c onnects [appel lan t] to t h a t ty pe of v ehi cl e, w hic h i s t he s ame ty pe of v ehi cl e tha t was seen at – loc ated at t he s cene that nig ht. And that’ s the purp ose of ge tti ng i nto t hat.” The S tate f urthe r elabora ted thatit sought the testim ony reg arding the b ank rob bery as ev iden ce ty ing appel lan t t o Gol den and M ez a, bo th of w hom tes ti fied they w ere w it h appel lan t on the nig ht of the m urder

. The re cord shows that the tri al cour t heard the cont est ed te sti mony outs ide of the p re senc e of t he jur y . Be fore mak ing a r uli ng on D ock er y ’s tes ti mony , t he tr ial cour t heard tes ti mony

f ro m Gol den rel ati ng to the bank rob ber y , appell ant’ s p arti ci pati on as a dr iv er

i n the robber

y , as w ell as tes ti mony re lat ed to the v ehi cl e i tse lf. After hear ing both Doc ker

y ’s and Gol den’ s tes ti mony , the tr ial cour t j udg e too k a reces s t o c onsi der the admis si bil ity

of the ev ide nce before all ow ing Dock er y ’s and Gol den’ s t est imony

. D ur ing 1 Gol den’ s t est imony , Gol den sta ted that appel lan t drov e them to t he bank i n a Thunde rb ird. Th e Sta te sho w ed Go lden a pho tograp h t a k e n of the T hun derb ird used in th e robb ery w hic h Gol den ident ified as being the same v ehi cl e that appe ll ant h ad dr iv en. That was the same p hotog ra ph th at R eed had ear li er tes ti f ie d as si mil ar

to the v ehi cl e s he had seen par ked near

the Toot’n Totum atthe ti me of the m u rd e r. M ez a al so ide nti fied th e photog ra phed v ehi cle as the v ehi cl e tha t G old en, M ez a, an d appel lan t had us ed on the nig ht of the murder. N e xt, the Stat e had Doc ker y tes ti fy as to t he foundati on of the photog ra ph of the ve h icl e recov ered dur ing the invest ig ati on of the bank ro bber y . The Stat e s oug ht t o admi t t he factua l re sume from the fede ra l ro bber y ca se; howev er , upo n rev i ew o f t he d ocum ent , th e tr i al c ou rt i nfo r me d th e St at e th ati t w i s he d th e res um e7

re dact ed bec ause “w hat we’re tr y ing to keep out o f here is ev ide nce at t his poi nt of oth er bad acts. ” U pon c los er co nsi derati on of the document , t he tr ial co urt sug g est ed that t he documentnot be offered atal l, but that Doc ker y i nst ead si mply tes ti fy to the p orti on of the facts that appel lan t drov e the othe rsto the bank that they robbed. The Stat e accept ed th e cour t’ s s ug g est ion and onl y offered D ock er

y ’s reci tati on of the facts from the re sume. From th e record, it is app aren tt hatthe trial court de liberate d on app ellant ’s obje ction. Further, the court acted as to l imit the referen ces to ap pellan t’s participat ion in the ban k robbe ry

to the sol e i s s u e of

app ellant ’s participatio n in the ban k robbe ry as a dr iv er of a Thunder bird. F ro m it s a cti ons, i t woul d appea r that the t ri al cour t ac cept ed th e Stat e’sex pla nati on th at c onnecti ng the v ehi cl e from t he robber y to the v ehi cl e obs er

v ed at t he murder

sc ene was probati v e ev ide nce becau se itplaced appell ant at the sc ene nea r the t ime of the murder

. T h e re fo re , the State sat is fied th e tr ial co urt t hat t he extraneous offense ev ide nce had rele v ance apar t from it s charact er confor mity v alu e. See S antel lan , 939 S. W .2d a t 169; Mo ntg omery v . Stat e, 810 S.W .2d a t 387

. Addi ti onal ly , t he c onnecti on of appell ant w it h a s e d a n -t ype v ehi cl e c oul d hav e been re levant a s t o bot h i denti ty and opp ortun ity . See Martin v. State, 173 S.W .3d 463 , 467 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 5) (trial court ruling i s to be u phe ld if the ruling is correct on any theory of la w a p p li c a b le t o t he ca se). T here fore, we conclude thatthe trial court’s de cision w as w ithin th e z one of reason able dis ag re ement an d, t hus, w il l not o v ertur n the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on. Onc e the tr ial j udg e has r ule d on w hether t h e ev ide nce is rele v ant b ey ond i ts charact er

co nformity

v alu e, he has r ule d on th e full extent of the oppo nent' s R ule 404( b) obj ect ion

. Sant ell an, 9 39 S. W .2d a t 169 ; M ontg omery , 810 S.W .2d at 388. The oppon ent8

m u stth e n m a ke a f u rt h e r o bje ct io n b a se d o n Ru le 4 0 3 in o rd e r fo r th e tr ia l ju d ge t o we igh the proba tiv e an d prejud icia l va lu e o f t he e v iden ce. Id. T o exclude extraneo us of fense ev ide nce under

R ule 403, the opponentmustsp eci fical ly req uesta Rul e 403 ru li ng . Se e Mo ntg omery , 810 S.W .2d a t 388

. In t he i nst ant c ase, appel lan t di d notmake a R ule 403 obj ect ion ; t herefore, w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t waived th is obj ect ion

. Id. Factu al Suf

f iciency In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e must consi der all of the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht to de term ine w het he r a j u ry was rationa lly justif ied in f inding guilt bey ond a reason able doubt. Se e W ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)

. The appel lat e cour t v iews t he ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht and asks w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdict i s s o weak or

so ag ain st the g rea t weigh t and preponderance of the ev ide nce as t o re n d e r t h e v e rd i ctm a n i fe s t l y

u nj u s t

. S e e S t e a d m a n v . S t a t e , N o . P D - 1 3 1 - 0 8 , 2 0 0 9 WL 838550, at *4 ( Tex .C ri m.App. Apr il 1, 2009)

. A w ro ng and unj ustve rd ict inc lud es ins tanc es in w hic h the j ur

y ’s findi n gs “sh o cks t he c onsc ien ce, ” or cl ear ly demons trates bi as. Se e Grotti v. Sta te, 2 73 S. W .3d 273 , 280 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8). I n doin g a factu al suf f iciency re v iew , t he appe ll ate c our t mus t be mindful that a jur y has already

passed on th e facts and must g iv e due deferenc e to the d eter minat ion s o f the j ur y . See La ncon v . St ate, 253 S.W .3d 6 99, 7 04- 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008). I f t h e ve rd ict i s s et as ide , t he c our t of appeal s’ s o p inion shoul d c lea rl y ex pla in how

the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdict i s t oo w eak o n its ow n or how the cont radicting evi de n c e s o g re atly outw eighs the evidence in supp o rtof

the verdict. See id. Further, if a court of

app eals up hold s a v erdict, it is re q uired to co nsi der

the most impor

tant ev ide nce that the a ppel lan t c lai ms und er minesthe9

jur y 's v erdict and ex pla in w hy i t doe s n ot ha v e the persuas iv e forc e tha t t he par ty bel ieves is su ff ic ien t t o ov ertur n the verdict. See Si ms v . St ate, 99 S. W .3d 6 00, 6 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 3). Appel lan t’ s c ontent ion i s that there w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce focusi ng on w hat was not p re sent ed to the jur y . Appel lan t sta tes that no ev ide nce of a w eapon, fing er pr int s, or ey ew it ness es at t he s cene of the c ri me wa s pres ented to t he j ur y . Appel lan t furt her comments on t he poor

qual ity and g ra iny

nature of the v ide otape and the diff ic ulty of the v ide o ex per

t and off ic ers i n maki ng a po si ti v e i denti ficat ion

. Fi nal ly , app ell ant a ttempt s t o dis credi t t he te sti mony of Dan nie Gol den, D. J. Gol den, and M ez a as unreli abl e and cont ra dictor

y . Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, iti s t ru e tha t there w as no murder weapon found or us eabl e fing e rp ri nts i n the st ore. Howev er , t he recov ered s pent cas ing was ide nti f ie d a s .25 c ali ber

. D. J. Gol den t est ified thatappel lan t c ar ri ed a .25 c ali ber g un. App ellantconte nds n o eyew itness places him in the sto re at the time o f the m urde r. Howev er , bot h Gol den and M ez a s tated thatthey were park ed outsi de of the sto re wait ing for a frie nd atthe ti me of t he murde r. Both Gol den and Me z a sta ted that appel lan t l eft the v ehi cl e for a s hor

t w hil e. Al so, R eed obs er v ed a sedan -ty pe v ehi cl e park e d o u tsi de th e store on the night of

t he mu rder. G olde n testif ied tha t, w hen app ellantg ot ba ck to the car, he to ld them t o “ g o, g o, g o.” Mez a furt her tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t l ater tol d hi m that appel lan t had tr ied to ro b the st ore. Appel lan t’ s conte nti ons are w it hin the pur v iew of the jur y ’s dete rmi nati ons. Se e Lanc on, 2 53 S. W .3d a t 705

. The ju ry w as in the b estpos it ion to j udg e the credi bil ity

of the w it ness es becau se it w as present to he ar the tes ti mony

and10

obser v e the demeanor

of the w it ness es as oppos ed to an appe ll ate c our t w ho reli es on th e col d record. Id. Bec ause the jur y is the sol e judg e of a w it ness ’s credi bil ity and the weig ht to be g iv en th e tes ti mony , it may choos e to bel ieve s ome tes ti mony and dis bel ieve oth er tes ti mony . Id. at 70 7. Al thoug h appel lan t i s c or re ct that no eyew it ness pl aced appel lan t ins ide the sto re , t here i s s uff ic ien t ev ide nce w hen v iewed in a neutral li g ht, if bel ieved by the j ur y , t hat a ppel lan t was in the v ic ini ty of the murder

and attempt ed to rob th e s tore. Next, on th e i ss ue of the v ide otape, D anni e Gol den rev iewed th e v ide otape from the sto re and tes ti fied th at t he person on th e v ide o w ore clot hin g si mil ar to the c lot hin g sh e had purchas ed for appel lan t. R ifenberg al so rev iewed the tape and obser v ed a bir thmar k o n the murde re r’ s neck

. Howev er , on cross -e x aminat ion , Ri fenberg did ack now ledge th at backg ro und noi se may inc re ase w hen the photog ra ph is enl arg ed. Appel lan t c ontendsthat the b ackg ro und noi se coul d pres ent an imag e of a bir thmar k o n the nec k o f the murderer as seen in the v ide o, but, in actu ali ty , the bi rt hmark may not ex is t. D ur ing tr ial , app ell ant w as ask ed to s ta n d u p and the j ur y obs er v ed appe ll ant h ad a bir thmar k b ehi nd hi s r ig ht ear . Ag ain , the jur

y is the sol e judg e of a w it ness ’s credi bil ity and the weig ht t o be g iv en the t est imony

. Id. Ev en th oug h no w eapons or useab le fing er pr int s w ere found at t he c ri me sc ene, the vid e o t a p e m a y b e o f

p o o r qu a li ty, a n d t h e wi t n e s s e s h a d c o n t ra d ic t io n s i n t h e ir t e s t im o n y, the re was suf

f icient evidence , w hen v iew ed in a n eut ra l lig ht, for a jury to be just if ied in findi ng appel lan t g uil ty

beyond a re asona ble doubt

. In v iew ing all the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c annot sta te w it h an obj ect iv e basi s that the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of11

the e v ide nce cont ra dicts the jur y ’s v erdict. Grotti , 273 S.W .3d at 28 3. W e must , t herefore, defer t o the j ur

y ’s v erdict. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. For the foreg oin g reason s, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Publ is h.