### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-99-00713-CR

Fr ank Tello, Appell

ant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNT Y, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 98-203, HO NORABLE CHARL ES R. RAMSAY, JUDG E PRESIDING
A j ury f oun d a ppe l l an t Fran k Te l l o gui

l ty of one co unt of mur der and two c oun ts of aggravated

ass aul t. SeeTex. Penal

Code Ann . §§ 19.02, 22.02 ( West 1994). The j ury as sessed punishment for the m

urder at im

prisonm en t f or twenty-f

iv e y ears and a $7500 f

in e, and f or each
as sa ult at impr iso nme nt fo rt en yea r s a nd a $ 50 00 fine
. We will a ffir m.

T ello and several

friends, in

cludi ng Roger Lerma, Ca rl os Cantu, and Cisco Garcia,
were gathered at Cantu’s resi

dence i n L ockhart on th e n

i ght of Feb ruary 20, 199 8. There i s evi

dence that each of

the nam ed i ndi vi dual s was a m

em ber of L a Rosa

Negra , or LRN , a

loca l gang. Dur ing t he course of the even

in g, vehi cl es occupie d by

persons not aff

il ia ted wit h LRN d ro ve past Cantu’s house several ti

mes. The two gr oups, t ho se in t he ho use and t hos e in the vehicles, sho ut ed t aunt s and i n su l ts at each other. There was testim ony tha t bott le s and rocks were thrown at the house. On t he last of t hese co nfro nt at ions, t he vehicles s t op ped and s ever al oc cup ant s go t ou t , a mong them Hen ry Si lva, Ronni e V al dez, and Ch ris B al tierra. More in sul

ts and chal

le nges to fi ght were exch

anged.2

Then shots were fi

redf rom the general

direction of Can

tu’s house. A ricochetin

g bul le t str uck Sil

va, who la ter died. T ello was convi

cted for the murder of Si

lv a, and f or t he aggravated assaul

ts of Val dez and Bal ti erra. In th

ree poi nts of error, T ello ur ge s t ha t t he ev ide nc e is leg ally ins uffic ien t t o su st ain t he co nvi ct io ns . We m ust decide w hether, after viewi ng all the ev idence in th e light m ost favorable to the verdicts, a ny rational trier of f

act could have found the es sential elements of the offense s beyon d a reason able d oubt
. See Jac kson v . Virgini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) ; Griffin
v. State , 614 S.W.2d 155, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Numerous witnesses were called by the State and the defense. Several were obviously re luctant to testify. The testimony was sometimes vague and co nfusing , and th ere were c onflic ts am ong t he w itness es’ accou nts. It was the jury’ s roleto decidethe cr edibility o f the witne sses and the weigh t to give the ir

testimony. SeeBonhamv. Stat e, 680 S .W.2d 815, 81 9 (Tex
. Cri m. Ap p. 1984) ; Caste llano v. State , 810 S.W.2d 800, 80 7 (Tex . Ap

p.—A usti n 19 91, n o pet.); see also Tex. Code Crim . Proc. An n. art. 38.04 (West 1979) . We wil

l sum mari ze the evidence s

uppor ting the verdicts. Wh en the riv al group appro ached Ca

ntu’s resi dence f orthe fi nal tim e, Lerma armed himse lf with a .45 cali ber pis to l a nd told Tello an

d the others in

the house that he wasgoing “ to go downthe b l ock an

d start it
. ” T ello , wh o ha d a
. 38 0 c alibe rpis t o l, r ep lied , “We ll, if y ou go , I ’m go ing to ha ve your ba ck.” L erm

a the n l ef t the house a

nd wal ked a crossthe street. Te l l o, C an tu (who was
car ryinga .3 8 ca liber pist ol) , a nd Ga rc ia (ar med wit h a sho t gun) follow ed a nd t oo k up po sitio ns in fro nt of the h ouse. As t he y we nt o ut sid e, Ca nt u a sk ed T ello if t he y sho uld sho o t . T ello t o ld h im, “G o ahe ad. Go f

or it.”1 Le r ma’ s c o nvic t io n fo rmur de ran d a gg r av at ed as sa ult wa s r ec en t ly affir med by t his Court. See

Lerma v. State , N o. 03- 99- 008 27- CR ( Te x. Ap p. —Au st i n F eb . 15 , 20 01, no p et. h i st.) (not des i gna ted f or pub l i cation). 3 Most wit nesse s ag re ed t hat t he pe rso ns in the v eh i cl es wereun ar med . Th e ta un ts and i n su l ts continue d

as Si l va , Val dez, a nd B al tie rra ap proach ed Ca ntu’ s res i den

ce on f oot. It appe ars that t he sho ot ing bega n when s omeo ne t hre w bo t t les at t he LRN members. Cant u t est ifi ed t hat he fi redt wo sho t s in t he air af ter a b ottle f

l ew pa st hi

m . Tell o t estif ie d that he al so fi

red in to the ai r, as a warnin g, when the rival

gro up began throwing things. A wi tness t o t he sho ot ing, ho weve r, gave
a st at ement to the police say in g he saw Tell o aim in g hi s pi stol di

rectly at the rival

group before fi

rin g. L er ma als o fi

red from h

is locati on across the street, and i t is un dis puted that Lerma f

ired the f atal b ul l et. 1 The co urt ’s charge to the j ury i nc l uded i nstructi ons on

the l aw of parties. SeeTe x. Penal Code A nn . § 7 .02 (Wes t 199 4). Th e c ourt a uthori ze d Te l l o’s

con vi cti on f orm urder i f the j ury fou nd t ha t Le r ma s ho t Silv a, eit he rint en t io na l l y or w h i l e c om m i tti n g a n ac t cl ea rl y da n gerou s to hum an l i f e wi th t he inte nt t o c aus e se rio us bo dily i njury, a nd that Tello encouraged, directed, aided,
oratte m pte d to a i d L er ma wi th th e i n ten t to prom ote or assi

st the c omm

i ssi on of the of f en se. T ello does not question the suf

fi ci ency of t he evi dence to support the fi

ndi ng that Lerm

a m urdered Sil

va. He argu es on l y th at th e S tate f ai l ed to prov e h

e w as cri m i n al l y re sp on si b l e f or L er ma’ s c on du ct. To es tab li

sh cul pabi li ty as a party , the evidence m ust show that t he al

le ged parties
we re ac t ing t o ge t her , e ac h do ing s o me p ar t in t he e xec ut io n o f a com mon de si gn. Rivera v

. State , 990 S.W.2d 88 2, 887 (Tex . A pp. —A us ti n 1 999 , pet. re f

’d ). Th e agre em en t to ac t i n a com mon design ma y b e proved ei

ther by direct or circum

st an t ial e vi

den ce. Id . In determ

i ni ng w hether a pe rs on partici pated as a p ar

ty to th e c om

m i ss i on of an of f ense , the f

ac t f i n der m ay l ook to ev

en ts4

oc cur ring bef

ore, during, and af

ter t he off

ense, an d ma y pl ace relia nce on acts showi

ng an
un de r st an din g and com

mon de si gn to com

m i t the cu l pab l e ac t. Id . at 887-88. The evi dence i s sufficient where

the ac cu se d i s p res en

t an d e nc oura ge s th e c om m i ss i on of t he o ffense by

word s or other ag reem en t. Id . at 888. Wh en Lerm a arme d himself with a . 45 c aliber p isto l and t o ld T ello an d t he o t he r s in t he hou se t hat he wa s go ing “to go do wn t he bloc k and st ar t it” w ith t he riv al group, Tell

o assured him that he , T ello , wo uld watch his back. Tel lo, Cantu, and Garci

a, each carry

in g a fi rearm, f oll owed Lerm a outside. Wh

en Ca n tu a sk ed Te l l o i f th ey sh oul d sh oot, T el

l o en cou ra ge d h i m to “g o for i

t.” T ello adm itted tha t he took pa rt i n th e shooti ng , an d there i s evi de nc e f rom whi ch the j ury coul

d in fer that he fir ed in t he d ire ct io n o f t he ri va lgroup. Fr o m t his e vid en ce , a r at io na l t r ier o f fac t co uld concl ude be yond a re as ona

bl e doubt tha

t Lerm a a nd Tel l o ac ted toge the r pu rs ua nt to a com mon unde rst anding ordesign to shoot at the rival gr ou p. A rat ional t rier of fac t co uld fur t her find beyond
a r ea so na ble do ub t t ha t T ello en co ur ag ed Le r ma t o co mmit an act clearly dangerous to human

li fe, and t hat he di

d s o wi th th e i n ten t to pr om ote the comm

is si on of the off

ense. F in din g the evi dence leg ally suff ici ent to sustain appellan

t’s conviction as a

party to t he m

urder, we ove

rrul e p oi nt of err or
one. The jury

also found that Tello, acting alone or as a party wi th Lerm a or Cantu, i nte nti ona l l y orknowi ngl y threa tene d Val dez a nd B al tie rra wit h imm

inent bo dily i

njury while using
orex hibit ing a fir ea r m. To sup por t his contention that the eviden ce does not suppor t t heseverdicts, T ello re f er s u s to t he t est imony of Va ldez a nd Balt ierr a, neithe r o f who m said t hat he hea rd anyone threatento kil

l hi m . A threat can

be conv ey ed b y cond uct aswel l as b y words. McGow

an v. State , 664 S. W. 2d 35 5, 35 7 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp. 198 4). Fr

om the evi dence prev

iousl y s umm arize d, a rational5

trier of f act could f

i nd be y on d a re as on ab l e doub

t th at T el l o th re ate n ed Val de z a n d B al ti er ra wi th imm inent bodil

y i nj ury b y s hoot in g at them. Under the ci

rcumstan ces sh own in

this record, even sho ot ingin

to the ai r, as Tell o admi tt ed he di d, could reasonab ly

be deem ed a t hr eat of immi

nent bodil y i nj ury. Poin

ts of error t wo and three are overruled. The dist rict co ur t ’s pu nishment charge i nstructed the jury

to treat Sil

va’s murder as
a s ec o nd de gr ee felo ny if T ello pr ove d by a pr epo nder ance of t he evidenc e t hat he ac t ed u nder t he i n f l uen ce of su dd en pa ss i on ar i si n g f rom an adeq ua te caus e. SeeTex. Penal

Code Ann . § 19.02(d) (We st 1994 ). In h

i s f i na l poi nt of error, Tel

l o conten ds the j ury ’sf

ail ure t o find in his favo r o n t he sudden pa ss i on i ss ue wa s s o ag ai

n st th e gr eat weight and p re po nder ance of t he evide nce a s t o be
man ifes t ly

unjust. See Meraz

v. State , 785 S .W.2d 146, 15 4-55 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 199 0); Rainey v. State , 949 S .W.2d 537, 54 2 (Tex . App .—A ustin 1997, p et. ref'd).

When conducting a factual suf ficiency review, the evidenc e is not viewed in the light most favo rableto the ver dict. Inste ad, allthe evidence is considered equally, including the testimony of defense wit nesses and the ex istenc e of alt ernati ve hyp othese s. See Or ona v. State , 836 S.W.2d 319 , 321 ( Tex. App.—Austin 1 992, no p et.) . A factu al suf fic ie nc y r ev ie w asks whether a neut ral revie w of al l the e viden ce, b oth for and agains t the challenged finding, demonstrates that t he proo f in supp ort of t he f inding is so obvio usly weak o r so greatl y outweighed by contrary pr oof as to under

min e confid ence in the ju ry’s determ inati on. See Johnso n v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. C rim. A pp. 200 0).

Tello and other

defen se witnes ses te stifie d that the LRN m embers a nd their friends were not lo oking for trouble o n the night of the sh o otin g, but had ga thered a t Can tu’s residence for a

party. According

to the defense ac count, trouble found them in the form of Silva6

and his companions, who repeatedly drove past Cantu’s house , shouting i nsul ts and hurl

in g rocks and bo t t les. T ello sa id he believed t hat he and hi s f ri ends we re unde r a t t ack by an armed mob, and that h e f i re d i n to th e a i r to dete r th e a ttack. W e f i n d l i ttl e or n o ev i den ce , howev er , to suppor t a finding that Tello was acting un der the in fl uence of anger, rage, or t error o f a degree that wo uld render a pe rs on of

or di na ry tem per i nc apabl e of

cool ref l ection. SeeTe x. P enal Co de Ann. § 19 .0 2( a) (1 ) ( Wes t 19 94 ). To t he c o nt ra ry, t he e vide nce re fl ect s that T ell o and t he other LRN
mem bers delib erately

armed them

sel ves an d went outside t o co nfr o nt Silv a a nd his co mpa nio ns, fully intend ingt o us e t he ir w ea po ns. Ha ving co nsid er ed all t he ev id ence, we cannot say that t he jury’s f ail ure to fi nd that Te llo act ed u nder t he influence o f sudd en pa ssio n ar ising from an adequate cause
was m anifes tly unj ust. Po in

t o f error four is

overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s B . A . Sm

i th a nd Patte rs on Af fi rmed File d: February

28, 2001 Do No t Publis

h