CAUSE NO. 04-14-0024-CR /33*ffS

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN/ TEXAS

ORIGINAL APETITI0N F0R DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

OF CAUSE NO. 04-14-0.024-CR

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

COURT OF CR!?J3NAL APPEALS

NOV 03 2Q15

ON APPEAL FROM THE 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

La SALLE COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 11-09-00041-CRL

MR. DESTYN DAVID FREDERICK

[PRO-SE APPELLANT]

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

[APPELLEE]

COURT-OFePIIMiNXtfA^feALS (OCA)

my 03 2s;5

Abel Acosta, Cierk

Mr. Destyn David Frederick #01920865

The John B. Connally Facilities

899 FM 632

Kenedy, Texas 78119-4516

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

-l-
CAUSE NO. 04-14-0024-CR

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

j

OF CAUSE NO. 04-14-0024-CR

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

ON APPEAL FROM THE 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

La SALLE COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 11-09-00041-CRL

MR. DESTYN DAVID FREDERICK

[PRO-SE APPELLANT]

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

[APPELLEE]

COMES NOW, Mr. Destyn David Frederick, styled hereinafter as pro

se Appellant and respectfully presents this Petition for Discre

tionary Review (PDR) relating to the above-styled and numbered cause(s),

and for good cause, the Appellant shows this Honorable Court the

following enumerated premises:

11-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ************************************* — 'Ivj*'-

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ************************ —.I/.-*-

i

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ************************************ •^y.J^-

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY ************************** — \/~

GROUND FOR REVIEW **************************************** —1-

ARGUMENTS ************************************************ 1—5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF **************************************** 5

APPENDIX ************************************************ (COURT'S OPINION)

-Hi
INDEX AUTHORITIES

PAGES

BURKS V. UNITED STATES,437 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct- 2141 *************

CAIN V. STATE,958 S.W.2d 404 *********************************

GREEN V. MASSEY.437 U.S. 19, 98, S-Ct. 2151 ******************

In re WINSHIP,397 U.S. 358, 90 s.Ct- 1066 ***************

JACKSON V. VIRGINIA,SUPRA ************************************

JONES V. STATE,944 S.W.2d 642 ********************************

RICHARDSON V. STATE, 379 S-W.2d 674 ***************************

ROUSSEAU V. STATE,355 S.W.2d 673 *****************************

STONE V. STATE,823 S.W.2d 375 ********************************

:*****

5

2

5

1, 2

TEXAS PENAL CODE 19.02(b)(3) *********************************

- IV..-
STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant seeks ORAL argument because He concludes that He has

suffered a great injustice at the trial and appellate level.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was charged by a Grand Jury on September 1, 2011 in

a Fourt (4) Count indictment. All offenses were alleged to have

occured on or about June 13, 2011. (CR:1). The State waved the death

penalty. Id. at 103. Before jury selection, the State elected to

proceed to trial on the offense of Capital murder as alleged in Count

1. (RR.11:3-4). The Appellant plead not guilty before a jury. (CR:412)

The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty to felony-murder

on February 14, 2014. Id. at 424. Punishment was assessed by the

jury at 30-yrs confinement within the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice - Institutional Division, and a fine of $5,000.00. Id.

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial on March 12, 2014. In

accordance to the juror's verdict and the court's ruling, the court

entered judgment of conviction and sentence on March 27, 2014. (CR:

691; and.498-99).

Appellant filed a timely notice of Appeal on February 14, 2014.

Id. at 675, and a Certificate of Appeal was filed February 12, 2014.

Id. at 674.

The Fourth Court of Appeals AFFIRMED Appellant's conviction on

September 9, 2015. A Motion to Extend Time to file Petition for

Discretionary Review (PDR) was filed by the Appellant's [then] app

ellate attorney (Richard E. Langlois) on October 9, 2015.

Appellant now presents this His "timely" submitted Petition for

Discretionary Review on this the 0\tf day of @fcfoP&S":„ 2015pm.

-V-
GROUND FOR REVIEW

"THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR'D IN LIMITING ITS REVIEW ON THE APP

ELLANT' S INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE CLAIM AND HAS APPLIED

A MISAPPLICATION SURROUNDING THE FACTS OF.THE APPELLANT'S CASE;

HENCE DENYING,THE APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A FAIR AND

ADEQUATE REVIEW."

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES Pi SUPPORT

OF SOLE GROUND FOR REVIEW

[tEUE]: Even though this is not a Ineffective Assistance of Oxnsel Issue, the Appellant asserts

that His appellate attorney (Richard E. Langlois) was biasly inefective for failing

to present "other" issues/grcuids for reversal considerations, and as this Honorable

Court can see for itself on page 4 (at bottcm) and top of page 5 of the COA's 'tPINIDN",

Appellant's counsel was also ineffective for attempting to raise the "Accomplice Witness"

issue as a independent ground for review. Please know that the Appellant made extrerrely

diligent attempts to p.irusade HLs appellate counsel to raise "other" per-se reversal

issues for appellate review other than the lone issue presented in the Etief he submitted

in the Appellant's behalf, of course to no avail.,etc.-. The Appellant now respectfully

presents this His.pro-se rebuttal to the COA's "OPINION."

"LIMITED REVIEW AND MISAPPLICATION OF THE FACTS"

Within this argument, the Appellant asserts that the Court

of Appeals (COA) err'd in limiting its review of the Appellant's

Insufficiency of the Evidence claim strickly to only "reviewing

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict."

In the past, this Honorable Court stated that jit emphasize

that in performing a sufficiency review, the COA are required

to give deference to the jury's verdict, examine all of the

evidence impartially, and set aside the jury's verdict if it

is contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence as to be

clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. State,958 s.w.2d 404 (Tex.Crim.

App. 1997)(citing Clewis v. State,922 s.w.2d at 129). A suffi

ciency, review is permitted by the Texas Constitution, Article

V, § 6. See also Stone v. State, 823 s-w.2d 375 (Tex.App.-

-1-
Austin 1994, no pet.) the Court stated:

In

When conducting a sufficiency review, we do not review the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Instead,

we consider all the evidence equally.*** We will set aside

a1 verdict for sufficiency if it is contrary to the overwhelming

weight of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust." (In perti

nent part only)

the instant case and in accords with the above requisites, the

Appellant would urge th&t—the—jury's verdct must be set aside because

it is clearly wrong and unjust, because such a verdict clearly shocks

the conscience and cannot stand. Jones v. State,944 s.w.2d 642 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996).

More specifically, the trial testimony established at most that

the Appellant had absolutely no knowledge or direct involvement with

the murder of the Complainant. This contention is supported by the

following facts, unlike the COA's misapplication of the actual facts

as illustrated throughout its Opinion: :,

SUPPORTING FACT NUMBER ONE (1)

"SHOTGUN NOT SUPPLIED FOR MURDER"

While at the residence of the Appellant, Rigo Guerra and Marcus

Serna (the "alleged" co-defendents) were in the Appellant's bedroom,

in which Guerra saw a shotgun on the Appellant's bed. Appellant related

to Guerra that His mother (Gloria Rodriguez) was selling the gun.

After making sure the gun wasn't loaded, Appellant allowed Guerra

to hold the gun, in which Guerra wanted to consult with his grandmother

to see if she would fPlbCChase the gun for him. [See page 9 of Appe

llant's Appeals Brief].

This testimonial, evidence clearly demonstrates that not only did

-2-
the Appellant present the gun to Guerra for purchasing purposes, but!

upon giving it to Guerra, He made sure that its wasn't loaded. These

facts clearly removes the Appellant from criminal intent of murder,

for it was the Appellant's sole conscious desire to sell the gun,

nothing else. [DARK BOLD MINE FOR EMHPASIS];

SUPPORTING FACT NUMBER TWO (2)

"NO KILLING WAS PLANNED OR KNOWN TO APPELLANT"

One of the Appellant's "alleged" co-defendants (Guerra) wanted

to kill a innocent by-stander, in which Serna responded to Guerra:

...We're (Serna & Guerra) not going to do anything stupid." All

of th is took place outside of the presence of the Appellant. (RR

8, pg 102-113).

This evidence shows that killing someone was not part of the Appe

llant's plans. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the Appellant

was not told and/or warned of Seran and Guerra's plans, for it is

totally obvious that Serna and Guerra were plotting,and planning things

with one another behind the Appellant's back. [DARK BOLD MINE FOR

EMPHASI S]; and

SUPPORTING FACT NUMBER THREE (3)

"THE APPELLANT WALKED AWAY"

After agreeing only to steal a few tangible items from the Com

plainant's garage, the Appellant saw that Serna and Guerra were about

to force their way into the Complainant's home, He (the Appellant)

knew that He didn't want to have anything to do with actually breaking

into the Complainant's home or hurting anyone, therefore He walked

3-
away from Serna and Guerra and walked out of the Complainant's garage

"before" the forced entry transpired, in which He later learned that

the Complainants had been shot. Id. at pg 114-123.

This evidence clearly shows that the Appellant did not act as a

party by planning and anticipating the burlary and murder of the Com

plainant. [DARK BOLD MINE FOR EMPHASIS].

These facts within themselves openly illustrates that the COA failed

to apply the correct review and legal analysis in deciding that the

evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant's guilt as a party

to felony-murder.

Finally, the COA failed to address within its entire "OPINION"

any of the the requisites outlining the elements for felony-murder.

This Honorable Court has stated that the difference between Capital

and felony murder is the culpable mental state of the defender. This

Court has said that capital murder required the existence of an "inten

tional cause of death" while felony-murder states that "the culpable

mental state for the actrrof murder is supplied by the mental state

accompanying the underlying felony. Rousseau v. State,855 s.w.2d

at 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). However, the inquiry does not end with

a finding that the Appellant possessed the requisite culpable to

commit the underlying felony. In order to find that the Appellant

is guilty of felony-murder, the jury must find that the Appellant

committed "an act clearly dangerous to human life." (See Texas Penal

Code, § 19.02(b)(3).

In

that

the instant case, a review of the testimony in this case reveals

the State failed to prove that the Appellant "intended" the death

-4-
of the

life.

The

Complainant or committed an act clearly dangerous to human

Court in In re Winship,397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d

368, the Court held that the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment

protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction "except

upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to con

stitute the crime with which he is charged. 90 S.Ct. at 1073. See

also Richardson v. State,879 s.w.2d 874 (Tex.Crim.App.).

As mentioned earlier, the COA faild to address any of these requi

sites while reviewing the Appellant's case, nor did they apply them,

hence denying Appellant a proper and adequate review.

Finally, the Appellant contends that the evidence and testimony

in this case falls short and is insufficient to meet the minimum Due

Process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Jackson v. Virginia,supra. The evidence is insufficient

to support the conviction and a judgment of acquittal should be en

tered. Burks v. United States,437 U.S.I, 98 S.Ct 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d

1; and Green v. Massey,437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct- 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE PREMISES ARE CONSIDERED, the Appellant PRAYS that this

Honorable Court GRANT this PDR by finding that the COA's assessment

of His sufficiency of evidence issues were not properly addressed,

and REMAND this case back to the District Court for further disposition

-and/or Reverse this conviction and acquit the Appellant-

[EXECUTED ON THIS THE J21 ffcfDAY OF OCTOBER, 2015]

5-
w

-6-

Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Destyn. D. Frederick #1920865

The Connally Facilities

899 FM 632

Kenedy, Texas 78119-4516
[APPENDIX "COURT OF APPEALS OPINION" ATTACHED HERETO]
jfourti) Court of Appeals:

^>an Antonio, tEexag

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00246-CR

Destyn David FREDERICK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE ofTexas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-09-00041-CRL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, ChiefJustice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, ChiefJustice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2015

AFFIRMED

Destyn David Frederick was found guilty by a jury offelony murder and sentenced to thirty

years' imprisonment. On appeal, Frederick challenges the sufficiency ofthe evidence to support

his conviction, asserting: (1) the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of an

accomplice witness; and (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that

t

Frederick was guilty offelony murder. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
04-14-00246-CR

Background

Although a grand jury returned a four count indictment against Frederick, the State elected

to proceed to trial on only one count charging Frederick with the capital murder of Israel Casas.

The State waived the death penalty.

On the night Mr. Casas was murdered, Frederick admitted he accompanied his friends Rigo /

Guerra and Marcus Serna to Mr. Casas's home. Guerra and Serna forced their way inside the ^

home, and Guerra shot and killed Mr. Casas. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court

submitted a jury charge on capital murder and the lesser included offenses of felony murder and

burglary of a habitation. The jury charge included instructions on the law of parties and the

necessity for accomplice witness testimony to be corroborated. The jury found Frederick guilty

offelony murder, and Frederick appeals.

Accomplice Witness

In his first issue, Frederick contends the evidence is insufficient to corroborate Serna's

testimony as an accomplice witness. The record is undisputed that Serna was an accomplice

witness as a matter oflaw, and the jury was so charged.

Article 38.14 ofthe Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure states:

A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless

corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense

committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the

commission ofthe offense.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (West 2005). We evaluate the sufficiency of

corroboration evidence under the accomplice-witoess rule by first eliminating the accomplice

testimony from consideration and then examining the remaining evidence to see if it tends to

connect the accused with the offense committed. Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008);Perez v. State, 437 S.W.3d 610, 616 (Tex. App.—SanAntonio 2014, no pet.).
04-14-00246-CR

To satisfy the rule, the corroborating evidence is not required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt by itself. Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257; Perez, 437 S.W.3d at 616. Instead, the

corroborating evidence "must simply link the accused in some way to the commission ofthe crime

and show that rational jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect the

accused to the offense." Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257 (internal citations omitted); see also Perez,

A2>1 S.W.3d at 616. No set amount of evidence is required to satisfy the accomplice-witness rule,

and each case is judged on its own facts. Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257; Perez, 437 S.W.3d at 616.

"[Circumstances that are apparently insignificant may constitute sufficient evidence of

corroboration." Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257. A defendant's mere presence at the scene of the

crime, however, is insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony. Id. "[W]hen there are two

permissible views of the evidence (one tending to connect the defendant to the offense and the

other not tending to connect the defendant to the offense), [we] defer to that view ofthe evidence

chosen by the fact-finder." Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). .

In this case, Frederick voluntarily gave two statements to investigators about the burglary

and shooting. Both statements were read to the jury. In his first statement, Frederick admitted he

gave Guerra the shotgun used in the murder. Although Frederick stated he allowed Guerra to take

the shotgun because Guerra intended to purchase it, we defer to the jury's evaluation of the

credibility of Frederick's stated reason for supplying the shotgun. We simply note Frederick's

provision ofthe shotgun is evidence ljnking him to the commission ofthe crime.

In his second statement, Frederick admitted he went with Guerra and Serna to the Casas'

home. The evidence also included the testimony of investigating officers establishing a forced

entry into the Casas' garage, anda canofsodawasrecovered from the hoodof a car in the garage.

Because DNA testingshowed Frederick's DNA could not be excluded as the sourceofthe DNA

found on the can ofsoda, this evidence also linked Frederick to the commission ofthe offense.
04-14-00246-CR

Finally, a pair of latex gloves were found in a backyard in proximity to the shotgun used

to murder Mr. Casas. A box oflatex gloves was also found in Frederick's truck, and Frederick's

DNA could not be excluded as the source of DNA on a latex glove found under the driver's seat

ofFrederick's truck.

Because the foregoing evidence tends to connect Frederick with the commission of the

crime and proves more than just his mere presence at the scene, the evidence is sufficient to

corroborate Serna's testimony.

Legal Sufficiency

In his second issue, Frederick contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the

jury's finding that he was guilty offelony murder.

A. Standard ofReview

In assessing the legal sufficiency ofthe evidence to support a conviction, a reviewing court

must consider all ofthe evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether,

based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational juror could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

318-19 (1979); Louis v. State, 393 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (internal citations

omitted). In applying this standard, we defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In addition, juries are permitted

"to draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence

presented at trial." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). "[A]n inference

is a conclusion reached by considering other factsanddeducing a logical consequence fromthem."

Id. at 16. Although Frederick raises a separate challenge under the accomplice-witness rule, "[w]e

do not use the accomplice witness rule in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence." Winfrey v.

-4-

,fv
04-14-00246-CR

State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). "We simply review all ofthe evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict." Id.

B. Summary of Evidence

Viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the verdict, Frederick

admitted he was with Guerra and Serna when Israel Casas was murdered. Serna was offered a

deal by the State and testified at Frederick's trial. After spending several hours together, Frederick,

Guerra, and Serna were sitting in Frederick's truck and discussed going to break into a house and

see what they could find. Guerra suggested they should have a gun for protection. In response to

this suggestion, Frederick stated his mother had a shotgun she was trying to sell. Frederick then

went inside his house and handed the shotgun through an air conditioning vent to Guerra, who was

waiting outside. After Guerra returned to Frederick's truck with the shotgun, Frederick exited his

house through the front door and returned to the truck.

The three men drove to Serna's house because he had a box of shotgun shells. Upon

arriving at his house, Serna retrieved the box and handed it to Guerra, who removed three or four

shells. After returning the box to its original location, Serna went inside his house and retrieved

three pairs ofdisposable latex gloves. Upon returning to Frederick's truck, Serna handed Frederick

and Guerra a pair ofthe gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints anywhere. Frederick then drove to a

location near a water tower where he left his truck hidden under a carport to avoid it being traced

to their intended burglary. The three men put the gloves on before exiting the truck.

The three men then began walking toward a light on a ranch when they encountered a

Gator, which was later described as a heavy-duty four-seater golfcart or ATV, with its key in the

ignition. After driving the Gator to a building, Guerra and Serna exited the Gator and crept to the

front ofthe building where they saw a woman smoking a cigarette. Although Guerra told Serna

he wanted to kill the woman, Serna told him no. Guerra and Serna then returned to the Gator, and

-5-
04-14-00246-CR

the three men drove to another house where all three men exited and approached the house. Either

Guerra or Frederick forced their entry into a garage from a carport. Because they did not find

anything of value in the garage, they began discussing whether to leave or go inside the house.

Serna believed Guerra grabbed a soda from a refrigerator in the garage, took a drink, and returned

it to the refrigerator. Serna did not recall Frederick drinking a soda.

When Guerra decided to enter the house, Serna followed him while Frederick walked out

of the garage. After forcing their entry into the house, Guerra shot Mr. and Mrs. Casas. The

evidence is undisputed that Mr. Casas died as a result of a gunshot wound to his face.

After the shots were fired, Guerra and Frederick ran out ofthe house and returned to the

Gator. All three men drove back to Frederick's truck and left the Gator where the truck was

previously parked. After driving around in the truck for twenty minutes, Guerra suggested they

rob a gas station. Guerra exited the truck and told them to pick him up behind some apartments.

Instead, Frederick drove to an alley behind Serna's house where they left the truck, walked to the

street, and saw multiple police cars at the gas station. As they began to return to the truck,

Frederick and Serna saw officers with a spotlight on the truck, so they ran to a different location.

Frederick called his mother and was apprehended when she arrived to pick him up. Serna was

apprehended shortly thereafter in the same general location.

C. Analysis

As previously noted, Frederick was found guilty of felony murder. With regard to this

offense, the jury was charged:

Now, bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you find from the

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about June 13, 2011, in La Salle

County, Texas, the defendant, Destyn David Frederick,either acting alone or as a

party thereto as hereinbefore defined, did then and there commit or attempt to

commit felony, to wit: burglary of a habitation and in the course of and in

furtherance ofthe commission, or in immediate flight from the commission ofsaid

felony, he either acting alone, or as a party thereto as hereinbefore defined,
04-14-00246-CR

committed or attempted to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to wit:

shooting Israel Casas with a firearm, you will find the defendant guilty ofthe lesser

included offense offelony murder.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(3) (West 2011). The jury charge included an instruction

on the conspiracy theory of parties which permitted the jury to find Frederick criminally

responsible for felony murder if: (1) he conspired with Guerra and Serna to commit the offense of

burglary of a habitation; (2) Guerra or Serna committed the felony ofmurder in furtherance ofthe

burglary; and (3) the murder was a felony Frederick should have anticipated as a result ofcarrying

out the conspiracy. Id. at § 7.02(b).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Frederick, Guerra,

and Serna discussed committing a burglary. Frederick supplied Guerra with the shotgun to be used

during the burglary." Frederick and the other men put on gloves in an effort to conceal any

fingerprints. Frederick, Guerra, and Serna forced their entry into the Casas' garage. Frederick's

DNA could not be excluded as the source ofthe DNA found on the soda can left on top ofthe car

in the garage. By supplying Guerrawith the gun for which Sernaprovided shells,Frederick could

have anticipated Guerra using the gun to shoot someone. See Flores v. State, 681 S.W.2d 94, 96

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984), affd, 690 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (noting

defendant could have anticipated victim being shot in furtherance of conspiracy to commit

burglary because defendant knew co-conspirator had a gun). Therefore, the evidence is legally

sufficient to support the jury's finding that Frederick was guilty offelony murder.

1In discussing the lawof parties inhis brief,Frederick citesGross v. Stale, 380S.W.3d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012),

and argues, "Gross's conviction and appellant's conviction both involve a legal andfactual determination ofwhether

they were culpable for the death of the victims as a party." Frederick notes the court in Gross held the evidence

insufficient to convict the appellant as a party. 380 S.W.3d at 188-89. In Gross, however, the shotgun used in the

murder waslocated in thetruck the appellant wasdriving, but the appellant neverhanded the gun to theperson who

shot the victim. 380 S.W.3d at 183. In the instant case, however, Frederick admitted he gave Guerra the shotgun used

in the offense. In addition,Serna testifiedabout the discussionshe had with Guerra and Frederickregardingthe plan

toengage inburglaries, while no evidence ofany discussions between the appellant and the shooter was presented in

Gross.
04-14-00246-CR

Conclusion

The trial court's judgment is affinned.

Sandee Bryan Marion, ChiefJustice

DO NOT PUBLISH