1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________ NO. 09
- 11
- 00 244
- CR



### _________________ JOSEPH EDWARD ROBERTS JR., Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D
- 100462
- R

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Joseph Edward Roberts Jr. appeals the conviction and life sentence he received for committing capital murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) (West Supp. 2012 ).
In his sole issue on appeal , Roberts asserts the evidence is not sufficien t to prove that he committed the murder in the course of committing a robbery. We hold the evidence is
sufficient to support the judgment, and we affirm.2 Standard of Review A sufficiency challenge require s an appeals court to review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine if a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979 ); see also Brooks v.
State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 894

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In reviewing the evidence , we give deference to the jury’ s responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from f acts. See Williams v. State , 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Evidence s upporting j ury’s f inding The indictment allege s that Roberts murder ed Michael McNamara in the course of
robb ing Joyce Cross. According to Roberts , the evidence established that he had completed the robbery of Cross when he murdered McNamara ; he concludes that no rational jury could have found him guilty of committing capital murder

. The testimony established that Roberts went into the offices of McNamara Insurance Agency and demanded that Cross, who worked there, give him money

. Cross was alone in the office after returning from lunch. Cross handed Roberts a $100 bill and

a sked if he was going to hit her with the baseball bat he was holding

. Roberts responded that he was, because she had seen his face ; he then struck Cross several times with the3

bat. Seeking refuge from Roberts’ attack, Cross crawl ed under her desk and pretended
she was dead.
A s Roberts was leaving through the back door , McNamara, the business’s owner,
arrived . Roberts approached McNamara and asked for a drink of water. After following
McNamara into the back door of the building, Roberts s truck McNamara several times in
the back of his head with the bat

. McNamara died from the blows to his head.
In a s tatement to police, Roberts admitted “I knew [ McNamara] saw the lady on
the floor that I hit with the bat. I knew he saw her because he was looking towards that
way. I decided to hit [McNamara] because he had seen my face and was going to call the cops.” Roberts add ed that he was trying to “get a couple blocks [away] from the scene.”
Course of c ommitting r obbery On appeal, Roberts concedes that he robbed Cross and murdered McNamara

. However, he contends he is not guilty of capital murder. According to Ro berts, t he
evidence fails to establish that he murder ed McNamara in the course of robb ing Cross
because the evidence established that t he robbery was complete when he murdered
McNamara

. A person commits capital murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person
while in t he course of committing robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2). The phrase “ ‘ in the course of com mitting or attempting to commit ’ ” as used in s ection
19. 03(a)(2) means “ conduct occurring in an attempt to commit, during the commission,4

or in immediate flight after the attemp t or commission of the offense [

. ] ” Riles v. State , 595 S.W.2d 858, 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ; see also Hernandez v. State , 10 S.W.3d 812, 823 (Tex. Ap p.

— Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d ). T he State must prove a nexus between
the murder and the aggravating offense; that is, the State must show that , during the commission of the offense or while in immediate flight , the defendant killed the victim to
facilitate the taking of the property. Whitaker v. State , 977 S.W.2d 869, 872

- 73 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 1998 , pet. ref’d )

. Roberts had not yet left the scene of the robbery when McNamara arrived. Roberts
admitted he struck McNamara because he believed that McNamara had seen Cross lying on the floor, and that he decided to hit McNamara “to get a couple blocks [away] from
the scene.” The testimony admitted during Roberts’s trial establishes the relationship the robbery had with the murder , and provides the sufficient n exus to support the judgment

. We hold t he evidence allowed the jury to conclude that Roberts committed the murder
while in flight from the robbery

. See Riles , 595 S.W.2d at 862. B ased on the evidence admitted during the trial, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319.
We overrule Roberts’s sole issue , and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.5 ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on November 6, 2012 Opinion Delivered December 5, 2012 Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.