### NUM BER 13-08- 0060 9-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
A LIC IA B ROW N, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 11 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d G arza

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Al ic ia Brow n, w as convict ed of murder , a firs t- deg re e felony , and ag g ra v ated ass aul t, a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02 ( Ver non 2003) , § 22.02 (V er non Supp. 2009)

. The jur y found Brow n to be a re peat felony offender and sente nce d h e r t o s ixty y ears’ imp risonm enton the murd er charge and forty y ears’ im p ri s o n m e n to n t h e a ggr a va t e d a s s a u lt c h a rg e , wit h t h e se n t e n c e s t o ru n co n c u rr e n t ly. See i d. § 12 .42( b) , (c )( 1) (Ver non Supp. 2009)

. By tw o iss ues on appe al, Brow n arg ues that (1 ) the e v ide nce w a s leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t her co nv ic ti on for murde r, and (2 ) the sent ences impos ed by the jur y are unc onst it uti onal ly

di spropor

ti onate2

to t he s er i ou s ne s s o f t he c ha rg ed o ffens es
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND T his case aro se f rom a n incide nt occu rring outsid e the Club Hy pno tic nightclub in Cor p u s C h r i s t i , Te x a s , i n t h e e a r l y mo r n i n g h o u rs o f M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 8

. M ieb onyR abb tes ti fied tha t sh e wa s a t t he c lub w it h her fri end R oshan da C lay on t hat e v eni ng
. She sta ted t hat B ro w n w as als o at the cl ub that nig ht. Brow n w as acc ompani ed by her fri end, Ki maly ia Johns on, a nd Brow n’s ni ece, H oll y R ios

. Rab b tes ti fied th at, at some p oin t dur ing that ev eni ng , a br ief al tercat ion took pla ce in the cl ub betw een J ohnso n and Cl ay
. W hen Rabb a nd Clay

ev ent ually exited the club at arou nd 2 :00 a.m ., the y sat down on a car just outs ide the ex it

. Acc ordin g to Rab b, Brow n then als o ex it ed th e c lub , foll ow ed by Jo hnson and R ios

. Brow n the n approac hed C lay and sai d, “ Bi tch , y ou’ re g oin g to sto p fucki ng w it h myni ece. ” R abb testi fied that Brow n then “st arted stabb ing ” Cl ay
. Rab b obser v ed C lay fal l o ff th e c ar , atw hi c h po i ntB row n “ tu r ne d to w ards me a nd s ai d, ‘ Bi tc h, y ou w an t s om e too,’ and sta bbed me. ” R abb sta ted that, as Brow n w alk ed aw ay , she saw Brow n hol din g wh a ta p p e a re d t o b e a s t e a kk n if e wi t h a b ro wn h a n d le

. Ra b b ’s in ju ri e s re qu ir e d su rg e ry, and s he w as hospi tal iz ed for si x day s. C lay , w ho w as sta bbed in the nec k, die d of her inj ur ies before paramedic s a rr iv ed. On cross -e x aminat ion , R abb ac know led g ed th at s he had “a co upl e of dr ink s” that night, an d tha t she ha d use d PCP, ecst asy, and m arihua na in th e days lead ing up to March 21 , 2 0 0 8 , but th at he r senses w ere no t impa ired at th e time of the incide nt. Sh e also admit ted that she w as unabl e to pic k B ro w n outof a phot o l ine up th re e day s a fter t he in c id e n t , wh il e sh e wa s st il l i n t h e h o s p it a l r e c o ve ri n g f ro m su rg e ry. Daw n D av is , a frie nd of R abb and C lay , t est ified thatsh e w as w alk ing out of the c lub
w hen Clay walked in, blee ding p rof usely. Davi s a cknowledged tha t she had p rev iously told police th at Clay, w hile dying , had said tha t “Holly ” was th e one w ho sta bbe d he r. H owev er, at t ri al, D av is sta ted that she did not re cal l w ho ac tual ly sa id the w ord “ Hol ly ” or w hat w as3

meant by

i t. Jo h n so n te st if ie d th a t s h e a cc o m p a n ie d Br o wn a n d Rio s to th e clu b th a t e ven in g. She s tated thatC lay

“ ki nd of pushed” her at one poi nt, but t hat s he “ w asn’ t w or ri ed abou t it .” Later , after Cl ay

and Rab b w alk ed out si de, B ro w n l ooked at Johns on and her fri ends
a n d sa id “Yo u -a ll sl ip p in g, yo u -a ll le t t in g t h e m ‘h o s le a ve
. ” J o h n s o n t h e n sa w th a tB ro wn and C lay w ere “ fig hti ng ,” and she als o saw that Brow n had a kni fe, but she did not know at t he ti me thatany one had been sta bbed. Jo hnson st ated that she and Ri os ex it ed th e cl ub to g ether

and that nei ther

of them fought w it h Cl ay or Rab b. Johns on then g ot i nto a
car w ith Brown and Rios and the group le ftt h e s cene . W hile in the car, John son h eard Brow n s ay ing “ ‘I g ot t hat ’ ho,’ or so methi ng l ik e tha t.” Shani q ua San ders t est ified thatsh e w it ness ed Brow n att ack C lay and Rab b, bu t s he did not see Brow n c ar ry ing a w eapon. Accordin g to Shani q ua, B ro w n as ked Ri os “i f that
w as the r ig ht pe rs on” after sh e att ack ed C lay

and Rab b. Shani q u a s tated thatR ios and John son d id notparticipat e in the atta ck, but rathe r stayed in the ir v ehicle. Shee na Coa ts, John son’s f riend, also w itnesse d the atta cks and state d tha t Brown struck Clay “[a] coup le of times, ” but tha t she did not see any w eap on in Brown’s han ds at th e time . Coats also sta ted t hat B ro w n w as alo ne w hen s he at tac ked Cl ay and Rab b. Latas ha San ders t est ified thatsh e w as tal ki ng to Rab b out si de of the cl ub w hen Brow n came outs ide and sai d, “ ‘W ho i s s he?’ ” Brow n the n s tar ted fig hti ng w it h C lay , after
w hic h C lay

j umped off the car

she w as si tti ng on “bec ause she w as full of blood. ” Lata sha state d tha t “[t]he re w as a lot of lig ht” w here the alte rcation took pla ce an d tha t she ha d “a good vi ew” of

w hatoccurred. She did n ot see anyo n e c a rryin g a knife. On crossex aminat ion , Lat asha admit ted t hat s he w as show n tw o photo li neups by pol ic e; she faile d to pi ck out Brow n as C lay ’s att ack er on the firs t li neup, but did so on th e s econd l ine up th e follo w ing day

. She de nie d hav ing tol d any one t hat R ios wa s the one tha t at tac ked Cl ay and R abb.Benson al so st at ed t hat she went t o t he pol i ce st at i on af t er t he i nci dent and t hat , w hi l e t her e, she 1 ov er hear d La t asha, herf r i end, st at e t hat she had seen R i os st ab C l ay
. T he t r i al cour t , howev er , i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat Benson’ s t est i m ony wi t h r espect t o La t asha’ s st at em ent at t he p ol i ce st at i on was t o be consi der ed o n l y fo r th e p u rp o s e s o f i m p e a c h i n g L a ta s h a , a n d n o t fo r th e tru th o f th e m a tte r a s s e rte d

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 80 2 (“H ea rsa y i s no t ad m i s s i bl e e x c ep t as provi de d b y stat ute or t he s e rul es
. . . . ”)

.

T he r ecor d on app eal doe s not cont ai n a copy of t he v i deo r ecor di ng, nordoe s i t cont ai n a t r anscr i pt 2 of t he i nt er v i ew
. 4 Jes si ca Bens on s tated thatsh e w as in the rest ro om at Cl ub Hypn o ti c whe n her frie nds Cl ay

and Rab b w ere s tabbed. W hen s he c ame out o f the re stroom and w ent outs ide , s he s aw

thatC lay

and Rab b w ere i nju re d. Rab b “ jus t kept say ing , ‘ Hol ly

and her aunti e, Ho lly a n d h e r aunti e.’ ” C lay “ w as g aspi ng for a ir

and ‘H oll y ’ w as her

l astw ords [si c]. ” 1 Det ect iv es Sarah Ak in and Ra lph Lee of the C or pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment int er v iew ed Brow n on the d ay after the inc ide nt. A v ide o recordin g of the i nter v iew w as int ro duced into ev ide nce. Acc ordin g to Det ect iv e Akin , Brow n ini ti all y denied hav ing any 2 knowledge of

the at tacks on Clay

and Rabb, but she ackno w ledged b eing at Club Hy pno tic
o n t h e n ig h tin q u e s t i o n
. De t e c t ive A k in t e s t if ie d t h a t , t o wa rd t h e e n d o f t h e in t e rvi e w, Brow n c hang ed her

st or y aboutw hat h appened that nig ht: A. [D etec ti v e Aki n]

. . . D e te ct ive L e e h a d a sk e d m e if I had any other

q uest io n s fo r h er

before w e l eft. An d at that ti me I made a c omment that—t hat I thou g ht t hat— I t hin k s he had made a coupl e of

comments about famil y and how family w as v er y i mport ant t o her

. An d I bel iev e at that poi nt I made a sta tement that I t houg ht t hat t hat w as w hy the inc ide nt ha d oc cur re d, w as becau se she w as t ryi n g t o p ro t e c th e r fa m il y. Q. [Prose cuto r] And she—th at spo ke to he r? A. Y es. Atthatpoi nt s he broke d o wn a n d i t w ent from

there. Q. And s he to ld y ou th at y ou w ere r ig ht? A. Yes. . . . [S]h e sa id tha t she ha d see n som e pe ople

w ho were ca using p roblem s with K ima ly ia, an d initially itw as Ki maly ia, I bel iev e, an d tha t t hey had been caus in g p ro blem s w ith he r in the club w hile the y w ere ins ide

. She g ot an gry, that made her ang ry , and sh e5 sai d s he s aw

the same g ir ls o u ts ide

. And w hen s he saw them, sh e kind of—a f ri end of hers w as there w ho g av e her a k nife, a nd s he t o ok the k nife and w ent a nd stab bed the girl s. Detect iv e Akin sta ted thatshe did n ot be liev e tha t Brow n’s conf ession w as false “beca use of her demeanor , bec a u se of the spec ific s t hat s he g av e on some o f the s tuff thatw as inv olv ed. [Brow n] ne v er sa id t h a t any one el se w as inv olv ed, s he to ok re spons ibi li ty .” Detect iv e Le e also te stif ied th at Brown’s confession se em ed genuine a nd “rig ht be cause from the—from the other w it ness es that w e tal ked to an d w hat s he s aid , t hey matc hed up. ” Brow n tes ti fied i n her o wn defense. She sta ted t hat, w hen s he l eft the c lub that nig ht, she saw

C lay and Rab b s it ti ng on a ca r outs ide

. Brow n c onti nued he r tes ti mony on direct examin ation as follows: A. [ Brow n] And then Ms

. Rab b jumped o ff the car and s he sta rtfig hti ng H oll y, w hic h I knew sh e w as preg nant, so I tol d my

fri end to g iv e me a kni fe, beca use th ey all had kniv es. Q

. [ De fe n s e co u n s e l] O k a y. A. Beca use they had already w ent t o—t hey

al l had itin th e ir p u rse . A n d so as I was go in g, proceed ing to them, they —th ey w as sta ndi ng up there, s o I jus t—I st uck Ms . C lay i n the bac k, to g e th e r o ff my n i e c e , a n d I p u s h e d h e r o ff. Q. And w ho— A. An d I to l d th em — Q. Ms . C lay or M s. Rab b? A. Ms . R abb. Q. Oka y
. And is that—i s that the on e tha t s ur v iv ed? A. Yes. Q. Oka y
. Now , l et’ s— let ’s bac k u p a l ittl e bi t. W hy did y ou g o g et a kni fe? A. Beca use th ey all had kniv es. Q

. O k a y.6

A. And i t hap pened s o fa st , I di dn’ t k now w hat t o do. I—I w as sca re d t hat h e w as g oin g on [ si c], y ou k now , hur

t s omebody

el se. Q. Oka y
. So w h e n you w ere w alk ing ov er there, aft er y ou g ota k ni fe, w ho d i d y ou g eti t from ? A. I g ot i t from myfri end t hat w as from Ki ng sv il le. Q. Oka y
. Somebody thatw as there? A. Yes. Q. Oka y
. W h a t di d y ou do— w hen y ou final ly

g ot the k nife i n y our

hand, w hat h appened? A. I pop ped i t ope n. Q. Oka y
. W as ita s teak kn ife? A. No, i t w as a poc ketkn ife. Q. Oka y
. Is t his so methi ng thaty ou had on y our person or

i n y our boot ? A. No. H e g av e i t t o me personal ly

. He w as out the re, he walked w ith us.

. . . . Q

. So t h e n a ft e r y o u g o tt h e k n i fe i n y o u r hand, w hat d id y ou do? A

. I

— I p ro c e e d e d t o st ic kCl a y. Q

. O k a y. A. Rab b, I mean. Q. Rab b? A. Yes. Brow n tes ti fied th at s he at tac ked Rab b becau se she felt t hat t he l ife of her preg nant nie ce, Ri os, w as in dang er . She f urther stated that she w as not t ell ing the tr uth w hen s he made her i nit ial st atement to poli ce—that she had s tabbed both Rab b and Cl ay —bec ause she
w as attempt ing t o p ro t e c tR i o s
. S h e c l a i me d , i n fa c t , n o tt o k n o w w h o h a d s t a b b e d andT he j ur y al so f ound t hat Br own had pr ev i ousl y bee n con v i ct ed o fa f el ony
. Ac c ord i ngl y , t he 3 aggr av at ed a ssaul t conv i ct i on was enhan ced f r om a second- degr ee f el ony t o a f i r st
- degr ee f el ony , and t he m i ni m um end of

t he appl i cabl e puni shm ent ra nge f or t he m ur der conv i ct i on was enhan ced f r om f i v e y ear s’ i m p ris o n m e n t t o fi fte e n y e a rs
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 12. 32( a) , 12. 42( b) , 12. 42( c) ( 1) ( Ver non Supp. 20 09 ). 7 m u rd e re d Cl a y. The ju ry found Brow n g uil ty

of the murder

of Cl ay and th e a ggra vated as saul t of Rab b. Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.

3 II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Ev id ent iary

Su ff icien cy By her first is sue, Brow n arg ues that the ev ide nce adduc ed at tr ial w as leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t her co nv ic ti on for murde r. In con duct ing a leg al suf f iciency rev iew , w e con sider the e v iden ce in the lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the v erdict to determi ne w hether anyrati onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e found the
ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Sander s v . St ate , 119 S.W .3d 818, 820 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. W e must gi v e deference to “ the respon si bil ity of the t ri er of factto fair ly

resol v e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to draw
reaso nab le inferen ces f rom b asic facts to u ltima te facts.” Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8

- 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )

. W e
are no t required to determ ine w het her w e believe tha t the ev iden ce at trial esta blished g uilt beyond a reason able dou bt; rath er, wh e n faced w ith con f licting evidence, w e mu st p re s u m e t h a tt h e t ri e r o f fa c tre s o lve d a n y su c h co n f li c tin fa vo r of t h e p ro s e c u t io n , a n d we must defer to that resol uti on. Sta te v. T urro , 867 S.W .2d 43, 47 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e c onsi der

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414- 15 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. The v erdict w il l be s et aside only if (1) it is so cont rary to th e overw helm ing w eight of the evidence as to be clearly
w ro ng and manifest ly unj ust , or (2 ) it is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the
ev ide nce. Id. at41 5 (cit in g Johns on v . St ate , 23 S. W .3d 1, 10 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 0)).8

Both leg al and factual suffici ency are measured by the ele ments of t he offense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

correctjur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi

v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f’d)

. Und er

su ch a c harg e, B ro w n c o mmitt ed th e offense of murder i f she: ( 1) inten tiona lly

or know ingly

cause d Clay ’s deat h; or (2) intend ed to cause se ri o u s bod ily inj ur y and committed an act clea rl y dangerous to human life that c aused C lay ’s deat h. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19 .02 (b)(1), (b)( 2). B ro wn a rg u e s t h a tt h e e vid e n c e u s e d t o co n vic th e r fo r m u rd e r wa s “i n c o n c lu s ive and ambi g uous, ” noti ng that tw o w it ness es, D av is and Bens on, s tated thatthey heard C lay ide nti fy “H oll y ” as her

as sai lan t before s h e d ie d

. How ev er , i t i s w ell -e sta bli shed that the jur y bears t he s ole respon si bil ity to jud g e the credi bil ity of w it ness es, and the jur y i s free to beli ev e or dis bel iev e any por ti on of a w it ness ’s tes ti mony
. See, e.g., C ain v. Sta te , 958 S.W .2d 404, 408- 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; Or tega v. State , 2 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 1 , 9 2 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no pet.)

. Mo re ov er , it is w it hin the sol e prov inc e of the jur y to
re c o n c il e co n f li c t s , co n t ra d ic t io n s , a n d in c o n s is t e n c ie s in t h e e vid e n c e a n d t e s t im o n y. Swear ing en v . St ate , 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 97 ( Tex. Crim . App. 200 3) ; Bowden v . St ate , 628 S. W

. 2 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 4 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 1 9 8 2 )

. W e mu s t p re s u me t h a t t h e j u r y re s o l v ed any confli cts i n fav or

of the p ro sec uti on, a nd w e musttherefore de fer to the ju ry ’s dete rmi nati on that Dav is and Be nson w ere i ncor re ct in thei r tes ti mony thatC lay

had ide nti fied R ios as her
ass ail ant. See Turro , 867 S.W .2d a t 47. The jur y w as als o free to di sbel iev e Brow n’s tr ial tes ti mony , i n w hic h s he deni ed s tabbi ng C lay , and i nst ead t o bel iev e Brow n’s i nit ial sta tement to po li ce, i n w hic h s he admi tted to s tabbi ng both C lay and Rab b. See i

d. Other ev ide nce suppo rt ing Brow n’s co nv ic ti on for Cl ay ’s m u rder inc lud es: ( 1) Rab b’s tes ti mony

thatBrow n s tabbed Cl ay and th a t Br o w n w as car ry ing a k nife; ( 2) John son’s te stimo ny tha t she saw Brown and Clay f ighting and thatBrow n sub sequen tly sai d “ ‘I g ot t hat ’ ho,’ or someth ing li ke that” ; ( 3) Shani q ua San ders’ s t est imony thatsh e s aw9

Brow n att ack

C lay; (4 ) Coa ts’ s t est imony thatsh e s aw

Brow n att ack

C lay ; ( 5) Lata sha Sanders’ s t est imony

thatshe saw

Brow n attack

C lay ; and ( 6) the tes ti mony of Det ect iv es Akin and Lee tha t Brown conf essed to stabbin g Clay

. From this evidence , a reaso nab le jur y co uld hav e eas il y

found bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatBrow n i ntentio n a lly or know ing ly

ca used Cl ay ’s deat h. See Sand ers , 119 S.W .3 d a t 820. A cc ordin g ly , t he
ev ide nce is l eg all y

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdict. Conside ring all the evidence , w e f urthe r concl u d e t h at th e v erdict is not clea rly
w ro ng , manifestl y

unjust , or ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the e v ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 415

. T he e v iden ce is therefore factu ally suf f icient to supp ort Brow n’s murder

co nv icti on. W e ov er ru le Brow n’s first is sue. B. Di spr op or

ti on at e Sen te nces By her seco nd issue , Brow n com plains th at th e pun ishm ent s assesse d are dis propor

ti onate to t he s er iou snes s o f the al leg ed of fenses, in v iol ati on of the Ei g hth a nd Four teent h Amendments to the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See U .S. C ON ST
. amends. VII I, X IV. H ow ev er , Brow n di d notobjectto her sentenc es at the time of se ntenc ing or i n any post -trial motion . To preserve error for app ellate rev iew , a def end antmustpresen t a time ly
o bje ct io n to t h e t ria l co u rt , st a te th e sp e cif ic gro u n d s fo r th e obje ct io n , a n d ob ta in a ru lin g. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a)

. Ev en c ertai n c onst it uti onal g uarantees are al so subj ectto forfeiture i f a proper

obj ect ion w as not made at tr ial

. Saldano v. State , 70 S.W .3d 8 73, 8 87 (T e x. C r i m
. Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). Cou rt s h a ve co n sis te n tl y ap p lie d th is ru le w h e n co n sid e rin g a chal len g e to a sent ence as uncon sti tuti onal ly di spropor

ti onate. See Nola nd v

. St ate , 264 S. W .3 d 144, 151 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, pe t. re f’d) ; Tr evi no v . St ate , 174 S.W .3d 925, 928 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. re f’d) ; see als o Guz m an v . St ate , No. 13- 09- 00132- CR , 201 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3812, at * 3- 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 20, 2 010, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Beca use Br o wn fail ed to spec ific all y

obj ectto the a ll eg edl y

di spropor

ti onate sent ences i n the tr ial cour t, she has not10

preser v ed th is i ss ue for our

rev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; Nol and , 264 S.W .3d a t 151; Tr evi no , 174 S.W .3d a t 928

. W e ov er ru le Brow n’s se cond is sue. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv ered and filed the 24th day of Aug ust , 201 0.