### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00009-CR
Johnny Ear

l Johns on, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. CR2000-108, H ONORABLE JACK H. ROBIS ON, JUDGE PRESIDING

A j ury f oun d a ppe l l an t Joh nn y Ear l Joh ns on g ui l ty of ag gr av at ed r o bbe ry, for whi ch t he di strict court ass ess ed thi rty- f i ve years ’ i m pri sonm en t. SeeTex. Pen. Code Ann . § 29. 03 (West 1004) . Jo hnso n challenge s t he lega l and fact ual su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e, and c omp lains of t he a dm i ss i on o f ext ra neo us o ffens e e vide nce . W e w ill ove rr ule t he p o int s o f er ro r a nd a ffi rm th e co nvictio n. Ch

ri ste lla Ma rti nez, th e c ashi er a t a c onv en i en cestore l oca ted at the c orner of In ter sta te 35 an d F ar m Roa d 1 10 3 i n Sc h er tz, wa s robb ed

at gunpo i

nt a t arou nd 11: 00 p .m . on No vember 2 8, 199 9. The robber was a b la ck m an weari ng a ski or sto cki ng m ask and a bla

ck coat wi th red stri pe s. H e took

the ca sh f rom both registers, all

of whi ch was i n den omi nations lower than $20 . La ur a Ga rc ia, t he st or e manag er , ha d left t he st o r e o nly five minu t es ea r lier . Ga r cia testifi ed that when she l eft, she n ot ic ed a Cad ill ac p ar ked behind t he st or e. A man in a black c oa t was st anding be side the ca

r.2 Several po lice officer s re spo nded t o t he re po rt of t he r o bbe ry. Of fic er Jo hn R eid y, who was patrollin

g in the area ne ar t he st o r e, sa w a sing le v eh icle t ra veling on F ar m Roa d 11 03 a nd followed it . T he ve hic le p r o ve d t o be a t an Ca dilla c d r ive n by a bla ck male . Re idy t ur ne d o n his em ergency li ghts and the Ca

dil la c ca me to a stop. Reidy, wh

o was waiti

ng f or assistance, in

structed t he driver to r emai

n i n the car. After a few mom ents, the Cadill

ac suddenl

y drove away . Reidy pursued t he su spe ct car . As he di d so, he noticed

two passengers “pop up” i n the car as i

f they had been hid ing pr ev io us ly. T he Ca dilla c b r iefly stopped a second tim

e, and the two passen

gers got o ut and began to ru n i

n oppo site directions. On e of the fl eei ng m en was we arin

g a bl ack j acket with red stripes. Reidy di

d not foll ow the Cadil

la c as i t again drove away , but sto pped to r etrieve a revolv er he saw lyi ng in t he road . A

t tri al , Ma rti nez s ai d that th i s w ea pon loo ked like t he o ne wielde d by t he robb er. The Cad ill ac w as finally

st op ped by a seco nd o ffi

cer aft er t ra veling

another m i l e or s o. The dr iver w as a ppe llant Jo hnny Ear l Johns on. In a sea rc h of t he ca r, officer s fou nd wo men’ s stockings with a knot t ie d in

them i n a m ann er that suggested that t hey were used as a m

ask . A sec ond ma

n, Terry Herron, wasarrested several hours la ter about three mi

le s f rom the robbery

scene. Herron was wea ring a black coat with red stripes. He was scratched an d hi s clot hi

ng was torn, as if he h ad been runni ng through the thorny

bushe s t ha t t hic kly

cover this

port ion of

rural Com

al County. Herron was carry in g $190 in bi ll s of l ess than $20. In det er mini ng t he l eg al

suf f i ci en cy of t he evide nce t o s upp or t a cr imi nal co nvictio n, t he que st ion is whe t her , a fte r view ing all the e vidence in the light most favo ra ble to t he ver dict , a ny rational trier of f act coul d have f

oun d the e ss en

ti al el em en ts of th e of f ense b ey ond a re as on ab l e doub

t.3

Jackson v. Virg

inia , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (19 79) ; Griffin v. State , 61 4 S . W. 2d 15 5, 15 8- 59 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1981) . A f

actual suf fi ci ency review askswhether a

ne utra l rev i ew of al l the ev i denc e, b oth f

or and aga inst t he f

i nd i ng of gu ilt , de mo nst r at es t ha t t he pr o o f o f gu ilt is s o o bvio us ly we ak o rso gr ea t ly out weighed

by contrar y proof as to und

erm i ne conf i den ce i n the j ury ’sdeterm

i na tion . Johnson v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2000 ). In argui ng that the evi

dence is le ga lly in suf fi ci ent, Johnson poi

nts to t he un

dis puted fac t that he was

not the m

an who robb ed M arti

ne z. The court’ s ch

arge, h owever, authorize d Johnso n’s conv

i cti on as a party to the robb ery . SeeTex. Pen. Code An n. §§ 7.01, .02(We st 1994 ). A defen dant’s cri mi nal responsi bi li ty f or t he conduct of an

ot her m ay be establ is hed b y c ircum stantial evi dence, in cl udin g evi dence of the defe ndan t’s conduct af

ter the c ri me was com m i tted. Cordova v. State , 698 S.W.2d 107, 1 11 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 85 ) . We ho ld t ha t t he ev ide nc e in t his c au se is leg ally suf f i ci en t to sus t ain the jury’s finding t hat Jo hnso n intent ionally aided t he co mmi ssio n of t he aggravated robbery . Point of error o ne is overruled.

In sup po rt of his ar gument th at th e e v i den ce i s f actual l y i n suf f i ci en t, J oh n son as se rts that “there is m

uch ev ide nce” that the car he was driv in g was not connected to the robbery . He does not r efe rus t o t his evidenc e. In fac t , t he de fense o ffered no evi dence at trial . In eff

ect, Johnson asks thi s C our t to re weigh t he ev ide nc e a ndse t as ide t he jur y’s ve r dic t mer ely be ca us e a diffe r en t r es ult is more reas ona ble. We mu st , ho weve r, maintain ap pr op riat e de fere nce t o t he jur y’s verd ict by find ing er r o ro nly wh en t he r ec o r d c lea r ly indic at es t ha t t he ve r dic t is wr o ng an d ma nife st ly un j ust. Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 9. A de cis io n is n o t man ifes t ly un jus t simp ly

because the fact fi nder resolv

ed4

co nfli ct ingviews of the eviden ce in the St ate’s f

av or. Ro ise v. Sta te , 7 S. W.3 d 22 5, 233 (T ex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref’d). Poin t o f error two is

overruled. Fin ally, Johnson c ontends the di strict co ur t er re d by

adm ittin g evi dence of extraneous off enses com m i tted by Herron . Jo hns o n r ef

er s t o t es t imo ny by a police off ic er that Herro n ha

d used t he name Jo hnny Johns on a s an al i as i n th e pas t. The wi

tness added that i

t is n ot unusual

for an arrestedpers on

to giv e the nam e of a relative

or frien d. The off ic er did n ot off er any det ails reg ar ding Herron ’scri

m i na l history . Joh ns on obj ec ted tha t thi s te sti mony wa s n ot relev ant, but did n

ot obje ct that it was ina dmis sible character ev

i den ce. SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 33 .1. I n a ny ev en t , t he wit ne ss did no t t es t ify to any extraneous miscond uct by Herr on. If t her e wa s er ro r in t he ad miss io n o f t his t es t imo ny, it did not af f ect Joh ns on’ s su bstantial ri ghts . See id. rule 44.2(b). Poin t o f error three is

overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: February

7, 2002 Do No t Publis

h