Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed June 15, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-01016-CR

STEVEN DANIELS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-2100336-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Nowell, and Justice Smith

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns

A jury convicted Steven Daniels of capital murder; specifically, murder in the 

course of committing or attempting to commit retaliation. Daniels appeals the trial 

court’s final judgment, which assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. In his 

sole issue on appeal, Daniels argues the evidence is insufficient to support his 

conviction. In a cross-issue, the State requests that this Court modify the judgment 

to reflect the correct charged offense. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to 

support Daniels’s conviction. We sustain the State’s cross issue and modify the 
–2–

judgment to reflect the correct charged offense. The trial court’s final judgment is 

affirmed as modified.

I. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

Viewed under the appropriate standard, the evidence at trial shows as follows. 

Daniels was in a long-term dating relationship with Tequilla Stroye, the mother of 

Jamilia Stroye, the victim. Daniels was not Jamilia’s father. They lived together, 

and after a few years Daniels and Tequilla had a child together. Around this time, 

when Jamilia was fifteen years old, Daniels “did something to her while she was 

asleep.” As a result, Jamilia moved out, to live with her aunt, Pearlie Stephens. 

Jamilia lived with Pearlie from the time she was fifteen years old until she was 

twenty-two years old. Jamilia was estranged from her mother, Tequilla.

In 2019, Jamilia began dating Brandon Jones. They eventually became 

engaged and resided together along with Jamilia’s son and Brandon’s two daughters. 

Brandon encouraged Jamilia to reconcile with her mother, and from time to time 

they visited the apartment her mother shared with Daniels for barbeques and drinks.

On May 29, 2020, Jamilia, Brandon, and their children went to Daniels’s and 

Tequilla’s apartment for a cookout and family gathering. Pearlie and Iris Sanders 

were also there. A few hours into the gathering, Jamilia was sitting in a chair that 

faced the front door of the home. The children were nearby, sitting at a table. Jamilia

observed Daniels masturbating on the patio and recorded what she saw on her 

cellular phone.
–3–

Jamilia showed the video to Tequilla. Both mother and daughter were upset 

and they confronted Daniels. Daniels apologized and said he was leaving and going 

back to Texarkana, where he was from. Then Jamilia found Brandon and, in an 

angry demeanor, told him they needed to leave. Jamilia, Brandon, and the children 

left the gathering and went home.

Once they were parked at their apartment, Jamilia showed Brandon the 

recording and he was also angered by what Daniels had done. Brandon sent the 

recording to his phone. Jamilia and the children went inside their home, and she 

called the police. Meanwhile, Daniels told Tequilla that he was going home to 

Texarkana; he took clothing to his car, and he drove away from the apartment 

complex parking lot. Tequilla stated that Daniels was “acting like a man who knew 

the police were on their way.” After he left, Daniels spoke with Tequilla on the 

phone and told her that, if the video were to get out, he would lose his job and his 

life would be over. He also stated that, if Jamilia called the police, he would go to 

jail.

Brandon went back to Tequilla’s and Daniels’s home to confront him. Daniels 

was not there, but drove back within a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, Jamilia drove 

up and blocked the street with her car, so Daniels could not leave. Jamilia and 

Brandon believed the police would arrive soon. Brandon testified that neither he nor 

Jamilia had weapons while waiting for the police.
–4–

Pearlie and others saw Brandon get out of his vehicle and knock on Daniels’s 

car while Jamilia stood a short distance away. Daniels got out of his car, and Pearlie

heard the men “having words with each other.” Then, Pearlie saw a knife in 

Daniels’s hand and yelled “he’s got a knife.” Daniels stabbed Brandon in the arm, 

causing him to fall to the ground. Then Brandon yelled “run, baby, run” to Jamilia

as Daniels chased her with the knife. Pearlie saw Daniels stabbing Jamilia; Brandon

heard her yell, “He’s stabbing her. He’s stabbing her.” Jamilia died quickly from 

her extensive and severe injuries.

After killing Jamilia, Daniel walked away carrying the knife in his hand. 

Brandon chased Daniels with his vehicle and struck him at low speed. Daniels 

managed to stand up and walked to the median of the road where the police found

him holding the knife. After a thirty-minute standoff, Daniels was arrested.

Daniels testified in his defense and admitted he was the man masturbating in 

the video. He admitted that his conduct on the video was illegal and that he could 

have gone to jail if Jamilia showed it to the police. He claimed at trial that Jamilia 

and Brandon were armed and that he stabbed them in self-defense. 

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his sole issue on appeal, Daniels argues the evidence is insufficient to 

support his conviction for capital murder because the evidence does not support his 

intent to commit the aggravating offense of retaliation. He contends that his 

nonretaliatory motive is clear from his testimony and the testimony of other 
–5–

witnesses. Furthermore, he contends the evidence is “uncertain” or absent to show 

that he knew the police had been called, that he would be charged, or that Jamilia 

would be a witness against him in a future criminal case. 

A. Standard of Review

Under the Due Process Clause, a criminal conviction must be based on legally 

sufficient evidence. Harrell v. State, 620 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court considers all of 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the jury 

was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); Harrell, 620 S.W.3d at 913–14. Further, an 

appellate court is required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations 

because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight 

assigned to their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 326; Harrell, 620 S.W.3d 

at 914. An appellate court will consider all evidence when reviewing the sufficiency 

of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted, 

or submitted by the prosecution or defense. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

B. Applicable Law

A person commits the offense of capital murder if he intentionally commits 

murder in the course of or attempting to commit retaliation. See PENAL § 19.03(a)(2). 

A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an 
–6–

individual. Id. § 19.02(b)(1). A person commits the offense of retaliation if he 

intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act in 

retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another as a person who has 

reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime. See id.

§ 36.06(a)(1)(B). 

A person acts intentionally, or with intent, when it is his conscious objective 

or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a). Direct evidence 

of the elements of the offense, including the identity of the perpetrator and culpable 

mental state, is not required. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007). The jury is permitted to make reasonable inferences from the evidence 

presented at trial, and circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in 

establishing the guilt of the actor. Id. 14–15. Circumstantial evidence alone may be 

sufficient to establish guilt. Id. at 15.

C. Application of the Law to the Facts

Daniels admits that he stabbed and killed Jamilia, but contends he acted in 

self-defense because he thought Jamilia and Brandon were planning to kill him. 

However, the jury was instructed on the theory of self-defense and rejected Daniels’s 

claim.1 

 

1

 Although Daniels contends his actions were not in retaliation but in defense, he does not argue the 

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense theory or cite to any authority 

relating to self-defense. And, in his prayer, he requests that we order a new trial or revise the judgment to 

show he is guilty of murder, not capital murder, and order a new hearing on punishment.
–7–

Daniels contends the evidence is insufficient to show he knew Jamilia’s status 

as a person who has reported or who he knew intended to report the occurrence of a 

crime because Tequilla stated that she did not know or tell Daniels that Jamilia had 

called the police. See PENAL § 36.06(a)(1)(B). The record suggests otherwise. 

Although Tequilla claimed that she learned Jamilia had called the police from 

Brandon and she did not tell Daniels the police were on their way, Brandon stated 

that Jamilia told his mother and Tequilla that she had called the police. Further, 

Tequilla testified Daniels told her that he was going home to Texarkana, he took 

clothing to his car, and he was “acting like a man who knew the police were on their 

way.” And, after Daniels left their apartment, she spoke with him on the phone and 

he told her that, if the video were to get out, he would lose his job and his life would 

be over, and, if Jamilia called the police, he would go to jail. From this evidence a 

rational jury could have inferred Daniels knew Jamilia’s status as a person who has 

reported or who he knew intended to report the occurrence of a crime.

Further, Daniels argues that the evidence relating to his actions during the day 

of the murder show that he was not acting in retaliation because he was at a friendly 

social gathering with Jamilia and Brandon, he admitted to masturbating but stated 

he had not intended for Jamilia to see him, he attempted to apologize to Jamilia, and 

harming Jamilia would not stop the publication of the video of him masturbating. 

To the extent that Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the basis 

of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, it is actually an attack 
–8–

on the credibility and weight assigned to the evidence by the jury. We are required 

to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations. See Jackson, 443 U.S. 

at 319, 326; Harrell, 620 S.W.3d at 914.

After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a rational jury could have 

found that Daniels intentionally murdered Jamilia in the course of committing or 

attempting to commit retaliation. Accordingly, we conclude the evidence is 

sufficient to support Daniels’s conviction for capital murder.

Daniels’s sole issue is overruled .

III. MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

In a cross-issue, the State requests that we modify the judgment to reflect the 

correct offense. The State points out that the final judgment incorrectly states 

Daniels was convicted of capital murder by terroristic threat instead of capital 

murder by retaliation. 

The record shows that Daniels was indicted for capital murder while in the 

course of committing or attempting to commit retaliation, the jury was charged on 

this theory of the offense, and the jury found him guilty of this offense. An appellate 

court has the authority to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record speak the 

truth when it has the necessary information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); 

Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc). 
–9–

We conclude the trial court’s final judgment should be modified as follows:

“Offense for which Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY 

TERRORISTIC THREAT” is modified to read “Offense for which Defendant 

Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY RETALIATION.”

The State’s cross-issue is sustained.

IV. CONCLUSION

The evidence is sufficient to support Daniels’s conviction for capital murder. 

Also, the trial court’s judgment is modified to state the correct offense.

As modified, the trial court’s final judgment is affirmed. 

The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the 

modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment in this case. See Shumate 

v State, 649 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).

211016f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

/Robert D. Burns, III//

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
–10–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

STEVEN DANIELS, Appellant

No. 05-21-01016-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-2100336-U.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Nowell and Smith 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED as follows:

“Offense for which Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY 

TERRORISTIC THREAT” is modified to read “Offense for which 

Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY RETALIATION.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects this 

modification.

Judgment entered this 15th day of June 2023.