### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00087- CR NO. 03-05-00088- CR

Jerom e Anthony Michael Sm ith

& Je r om e Sm it h, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . 56036 & 5634 4, HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n eac h cause , a jury found appellant J erome Smit h g uilty of eng ag ing in or g anized criminal ac tivity

by committing ag g ravated robbe ry as a me mber of a

criminal stree t ga

ng and assessed a ninety -nine-year prison term. See T e x . P e n . C o d e A n n . § 7 1
. 0 2 ( W e s t S u p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. In a sing le point of err or, appe llant contends that the e vidence is factua lly insuffici en t t o s u s t ain the
c on vic tio ns . We wi ll a ff

ir m. On Novemb e r

7 , 2 0 0 3 , K i S u

p So nw a s r o b b e d

a t gu n p o int b y B r an d o nRe ed, Chimeniem Echendu, a

nd Denzel Davis. Two da y s later, Said Ha

bsi wa s ro bbed at gunpoint by Re e d a nd Mark us Ma dd ox. Re e d, Ec he nd u, and Ma dd ox we re me mbe rs of the Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e s,
a cr iminal street g angwith scores of members in the Killeen ar ea, ma ny of them soldiers stationed2

at For t Hood. Acc ording to the evidence, appellant, an army serg eant, was the l eade r of the Killeen Gang ster Disciples.

Ap pe lla nt d id n ot d ir e c tly pa

rt ic ipate in ei the r ro bb e ry . I n fa c t, he wa s in L a s V e g a s, Ne va da , w he n th e y

we re c omm itt e d. He wa s c on vic te d o n th e the or y that he wa s c ri min a lly responsible for the conduct of the actua l r obbers. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 7 .0 2 ( Wes t 20 03 ); and
se e Ot to v . S

tate , 9 5 S. W.3 d 2 82 , 2 84 -8 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ) ( a pp lyinglaw of part ie s in prosec ution for org anized criminal ac tivity ). Appe llant’s challeng e to the suff ic ie ncy of the e vidence is limited to the parties issue. He urg es that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to support the jury ’s de te rm inatio n th a t he so lic ite d, e nc oura g e d, dir e c te d, a ide d, or a tte mpt e d to a id t he a c tua l r ob be rs , and that he did so with the intent to promote or a ssist t he commission of the robbe ries. Te x . Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02(a )(2)
.

Ev ide nc e wi ll b e de e me d f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt i f t he pr oo f s up po rt ingthe ve rd ic t is too we a k to su

pp or t a fi nd ingof

g uil t be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t or

if the c on tr ary

e vid e nc e is sufficie ntly

strong to prec lude a f

inding of g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Zun iga v . S tate , 144 S.W. 3d 47 7, 48 4- 85 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ). I n a f a c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll the e vid e nc e is considere d equally , including the test imony of def ense w itnesses and the e x istence of alternative hy potheses. Oron a v . S

tate , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). Due def e r e n c e mu s t b e a c c o r d e d

th e f a c t- f in d e r ’s deter

minations, particularly

those conc erningthe weig ht and cr edibility

of the e vidence , and the r eviewingcourt may disag ree with the re sult only to preve nt a manife st injust ice. J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).3 Reed testified that he joined the Gang ster Disciples while living in California. Reed said that he spec ialized in credit ca rd fra ud and identity theft, and he c laimed to have ne tted over two milli on dollars for the Disciples from these activities. Reed joined the a rmy and, in J anuar

y 2003, was stationed at Fort Hood, w here he eve ntually joined the Disciples chapte r led by appellant. Reed bo a ste d to a

pp e lla nt o f his a bil ity to ra ise larg e sums of mon e y . Ap pe lla nt, in t ur n, ur g e d Re e d to “d o w h a t yo ud o ” b e c a

u s e , a c c o r d in g to Re e d , a p p e ll an t w an te d

to d iv e r s if

y th e g an g ’ s criminal
a c tiv iti e s, wh ic h at th a t ti me we re pr ima ri ly lim ite d to dr

ugsa le s. Reed testified that in the fall of 2003, he beg an to f eel additional pressure to produce income for

the Gang st er Di s ci p les. Appellant wa s g oing to L as Ve g as to meet with other g ang members a

nd wanted mone y

for the tr ip. I n October , appellant summ oned R eed and seve ral other g angmembers to a Killeen apartment. There , appellant or dere d Cassy ne Malve aux, R eed’ s friend and fe llow Gang ster, to sit in a chair. He then place d a plastic ba g over Ma lveaux’s head a nd beg an to question Reed about how he planned to ra ise money . Reed said that he told appellant “a ny thing that came to my

mind at the time,” hoping to satisfy appellant befor e his frie nd suffoc ated. Anothe r Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e , Wil liam B ro wn , a lso te sti fi e d to thi s in c ide nt.

B y e arl y No ve mbe r, Re e d’ s f

e ar o f a pp e lla nt w a s su c h th a t he wa s s lee pi ng in h is truck with a pistol. One nig ht after appellant ha d left for

the L as V ega s m ee t i n g, Reed wa s
awa ke ne d a nd se ize d b y B ro wn and ano the r D isc ipl e , M ilt on Ev e re tte , a

nd take n to an a

pa rtme nt. B oth Re e d a nd B ro wn testif

ie d to wh a t ha

pp e ne d n e xt. E ve re tte c a lle d a pp e lla nt i n L a s V e g a s. Ap pe lla nt o rd e re d E ve re tte and

B ro wn to b ur n Ree d’ s tongue wi th a hot kn if e fo r s ix se c on ds a s a sanction for

having fa iled to produce the money he had pr omised. After

car rying out this order ,Br own testified that he se nt the money by Western Union, but company employ ees 1 wer e unable to find a re ceipt conf irming the cash tra

nsfer
. Th is tra ns fe r w a s d oc ume nte d b y a Wes te rn Un ion re c e ipt
. 2 4 Ev e re tte and

B ro wn lock e d Re e d in

a c los e t w he re a

pp e lla nt s a id h e wa s to re ma in f or tw e nty -s ix hours, althoug h they

rele ased him ea

rlier. On No ve mbe r 7 , a

fe w da y s aft er be ingre le a se d f ro m th e c los e t, R e e d w a s a g a in
s u m m o n e d

t o a g an g m e e t i n g . T h e r e , h e w a s i n s t r u c t e d b y s e n i o r m e mb e r s “ t o g e tw i t h s o m e b o dy, any body that would come with me a nd g o o u t and make money whateve r wa

y possible.” Reed convince d Eche ndu and Davis to he lp him and, ar med with a pistol and taser obtained fr om Brown, they committed the first robber y . They delivere d the proc eeds, $300, to B rown, who testified that he w i re d t h e money

to appellant in L as Ve g as. Two day s later, a g ain ac ting on or ders f rom 1
a p p e l l an tr e l aye d b y s e n i o r G an g s t e r D i s c i p l e s , R e e d an d M a d d o x c o m m i t t e d t h e s e c o n d

r o b b e r y. As befor e, the pr ocee ds of the robbe ry , only $100 this t i m e, were g iven to Br own, who wire d the
mon e y to a pp e lla nt. 2 Re e d b egan ta lki ngto a rmy inv e sti g a tor s in

Janu ary 20 04 . H e wa s ta

ke n in to pr ote c tiv e c us tod

y a ft e r r e c e ivi nga

de a th t hr e a t f ro m a pp e lla nt. Ne ith e r R e e d n or

any oth e r G ang ste r D isc ipl e te sti fi e d that a pp e lla nt e xpre ssl y order ed the c ommissi on of the two robbe ries. Instead, the testimony was that appellant order ed Ree d to d o w hate ve r i t to ok

—w hic h w a s und ers to od to me an c ri min a l a c tiv ity of any kin d— to r a ise
mon e y fo r the Ga

ng ste r Di sc ipl e s and a

pp e lla nt. Th e wi tne sse s a g re e d th a t no Ga ng ste r D isc ipl e in Killeen would under

take a ny criminal ac tivity

without rece iving a

ppellant’s author ization.5 B y c ha lle ng ingon ly

the fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , a

pp e lla nt e ff e c ti ve ly
conce des that the e vidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that he was a party to the two arme d robber ies. Se e Sto nev . S tate , 823 S.W .2d 375, 381 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, pet. ref ’d,
un tim e ly fi le d) . T hat is , a

pp e lla nt c on cedes th at when the e vid e nc e is v ie we d in the lig ht m os t favor able to t h e jury ’s ver dict, it supports a finding be y ond a re asonable doubt that he solicited,
encour ag ed, or dire cted t

h e c o mm is s ion of the robbe ries with the intent to promote their c ommissi on. Contrary to appellant’s c ontention on a ppeal, we believe that the evidenc e also supports this finding
even w hen it is viewed ne utrally . Although the re is no evid en ce t h at appellant expl icitly order ed Reed and his c ompanions to c ommit the two ag g ravated robber ies, the evide nce pla inly shows that
a pp e lla nt i nte nti on a lly

e nc oura g e d a

nd dir e c te d Re e d to c omm it any c ri min a l a c t ne c e ssa ry to o bta in the m oney appellant demanded. Apply ing the standard of revie w articulated in Zuniga , we c onclude that it was not manifestly unjust for the jury

to find bey ond a re asonable doubt t h at ap p ell ant was
c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le fo r t

he a g g ra vate d r ob be ri e s c omm itt e d b y Re e d a nd his c omp anio ns . The point of er

ror is over

ruled a nd the judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

_____________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 15, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh