### NUM BER 13-09- 0006 8-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 – E DI NBURG
JA VIERC HA

VEZ , 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 10 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Jav ier

C hav ez , appeals f ro m his conv ic ti on of m urder

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 19 .02 (b)(1) ( Verno n 200 3). B y tw o issues, Chavezargues thatthe evidence i s l eg al l y a nd fac tu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on
. W e affi r m.B e c a u s e th is is a m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n a n d th e p a r tie s a r e f a m ilia r w ith th e f a c ts , w e w ill o n ly 1 d i s c u s s th e fa c ts a s n e c e s s a ry fo r th e re s o l u ti o n o f th e a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1 ( “ T he co ur t of appea l s m ust han d do wn a wr i t t en o pi ni on t hat i s as br i efas pr act i cabl e but t hat addr esses ev er y i ssue r ai sed an d n ec es s ary t o fi na l di s po s i t i on of t he ap pe al

. ”)

.

Li sbet h G ar ci a t est i f i ed t hat she was t he owner of t he bl ack Chevr ol et Bl az er , whi ch she b ought f r om 2 he r brot he r, Lu c i o F i gu ero a. S he stat ed t ha t du ri ng Ja nu a ry 2 00 7, F i gu ero a l i ved w i t h h er an d o ft en drove t he v ehi cl e. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND 1 Lui s d e Leon (“ Commander de L e o n ”), a n i nv est ig ator w it h the C amero n C ounty Di str ic t At tor ney ’s off ic e, t est ified that on Janua ry 19, 2007, he met w it h St ev en R odr ig uez conc er nin g a pendi ng cas e in w hic h R odr ig uezw as a v ic ti m. C ommander de L eon s tated that Rod ri g uez w as to retur n on Janua ry 22, 2007, to prov ide so me i nformati on “ on an auto theft r ing .” R odr ig ueznev er r etur ned t o prov ide thati nformati on. On J anuar

y 20, 2007, Rod ri g uezand Tri nid ad San chezw er e dr ink ing and doi ng dr ug s a t Sa nchez ’s hous e at 1200 M il pe Verde, in B row nsv il le, Tex as, w her e Sanc hez live d wit h h is mothe r and g ra ndmother

. At s ome poi nt t hat e v eni ng , a bla ck C hev ro let Bl az er ar ri v ed at the house , and Luci o F ig ueroa and Benj amin Pena e x it ed th e Bl az er and
e n t e re d S a n c h e z’s h o u s e
. Sh o rt ly t h e r e a ft e r, Ch a ve z a ls o e n t e re d t h e h o u s e
. Al l f ive 2
men ex it ed th e hous e and proceed ed to the front y ard. Sanc heztes ti fied th at on ce the men w er e out si de, a n uni denti fied p e rson a rr iv ed in a Chevrolet Silv erad o pickup truck. Th at pe rson ap proa ched Rodriguezand called him
a s nit ch. F ig ueroa and Pena a ls o c all ed R odr ig ueza sni tch

. Fi g ueroa, P ena, and C hav ez then beg an fig hti ng w it h Rod ri g uez
. Theyw er e hi tti ng hi m w it h the ir fist s. Sanc hezbeg an a rg u i n g w i t h F i g u e ro a , a n d t h e m a n fro m t h e S i l v e r a d o g ot in his tru c ka n d d ro v e o ff. Sanc hezst ated that at s ome poi n t d ur ing the fig ht, Rod ri g uezr an i nto t he hous e. How ev er , Sa ncheztol d C hr is Orti z , an off ic er w it h the Brow nsv il le Pol ic e D epar tment andT hi s t est i m ony was ad m i t t ed o ver a run ni ng hea r say obj ect i on, and on appea l , C hav ez doe s not 3 c h a l l e n g e th e tria l c o u rt’ s d e c i s i o n to a d m i t t h i s te s ti m o n y . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 3 8 .1 (f ); J a y n e s v . S ta te , 216 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 5 ( T e x . A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) ( s ta tin g th a t a n a p p e lla te c o u r t c o n s id e r s a ll evi de nc e, bo t h a dm i s s i bl e a nd i na dm i s s i bl e, w he n revi ew i ng the l eg al a nd fa c t ua l s uffi c i en c y of t he evi de nc e); A rza g a v . S ta te , 86 S

. W

. 3d 76 7, 77 8 (T ex
. A pp
. –E l P as o 2 00 2, no pe t

. ) ( s am e). 3 the l ead i nv est ig ato r in t h e case, that Rod ri g uezw as tak en i nto t he hous e by Enr iq ue Gar ci a, S anche z ’s unc le. Sanc hezfurth er

tes ti fied th at w hen Rod ri g uezente re d the hous e, C hav ezand Pena
ra n around the side of

the house to the backy ard. Sanc hezadmi tted that he di d notse e
w hat o cc ur re d i n the bac ky ard and that he w as arg uin g w it h F ig ueroa atthe ti me C hav ez and Pe na ran to the backy ar d. Sanc hezstated that tw o to three mi nutes l ater , C hav ezand Pen a cam e runn ing back to the f ront yard and th at on e of them said to Sa nche z , “Y ou’re next.” C havez and Pena then g ot into the Bla z er w ith Figueroa an d l e ft . Sanch ez told Off ic er Or ti zthat C h a v ezw as w ear ing su rg ic al g lov es and had bl oody hands w hen he
cam e runn ing from the backyard. Chavez testif ied that he w ent into the backy ard to “take 3 a l eak, ” and Sa nchezadmi tted that he did not s ee C hav ezw it h R odr ig uezi n the bac ky ar d. Sanc h e za l s o s t a t e d t h a th e d i d n o ts e e R o d r i g u e za g a i n a ft e r R o d r i g u e zw e n ti n t o t he house

. Den is e R odr ig uez , a dis patc her w it h the Brownsvil le Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied that she w as on dut y

the nig ht of J anuar

y 2 0 , 2 0 0 7, an d tha t atabout1:30 a.m. in the
mo rning of

Janu ary21, 2007 , she receiv ed a 911 call f rom a ma le w ho ide ntif ied him self
as Stev en R odr ig uez
. She no ted t hat t he c all er r epeate d ly s tated thathe h ad been sta bbed bu t di d not

i denti fy his as sai lan t. S h e d isp atc hed paramedic s t o the l ocat ion Rod ri g uezg av e her

. Jul io Br i o n e s, an officer w it h the Brow nsv il le Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied th at he w as ass ig ned t o i nv est ig ate a homi ci de at1200 Mi lp e V e rd e i n Brow nsv il le, Tex as. H e w ent4

to t he s cene, and sev er al other off ic ers w ere a lre a d y

there. W hen he ar ri v ed, h e w as directe d to a ditch app rox ima tely sixty y ards beh ind th e ho use a nd sa w Rodriguezly ing i n the d it ch. R odr ig uezhad been s tabbed mu lt ip le ti mes. Officer Br ion es col lec ted b loo d
sam ples f rom th e area surroun ding the ditch an d f rom th e Blazer. Off icer Briones w as also pr es en t du r i ng t he a ut op s y o f R od r i g ue z ’ s b od y

a nd t oo ka s e v i de nc e s om e fi ng er nail cl ipp ing s from R odr ig uez ’s body

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Off ic er Br ion es tes ti fied th at he photog ra phe d C h a vez at the jai l and di d notse e any si g ns of Chav ezhav ing been in a f ight. Off icer Briones also state d tha t he did not f ind an y ev iden ce at Cha v ez’s hou se con ne c ti ng C ha v ezt o R od r i g ue z ’ s mu r de r
. N or ma J ea n F ar l ey , th e c hi ef fo rensic pathol og is t atVal ley

F or ensi cs , tes ti fied that she per formed the a utops y

on R odr ig uezand tha t he die d in a ho micide f rom th e stab w oun ds. Dora Lee Pal omino tes ti fied that she w as “s eei ng ” Cha v ez dur ing Janua ry 200 7, inc lud ing on J anuar

y 20, 2007. On Janua ry 21, 2 0 0 7 , b e tw een mi dni g ht an d 1:0 0 a.m. , Palo min o received a pho ne ca ll from Chavez . Chavez w as high on d rugs, and she spoke
w it h hi m for fiv e to ten mi nutes

. He ask ed for m oney
. Later

that morni ng , Palomi no met Cha v ezat a par k i n Brow nsv il le, T ex as. Cha v ezar ri v ed i n the bac k s eat o f the Bl az er and g ot int o Pal omino’ s car
. Cha v ez tol d her that he had hur t someone and that h e had sta bbed s omeone. H e ag ain as ked for money and sai d tha t he needed money to lea v e. Chaveztold he r that he stab b e d so me one beca use th at pe rson “w as me ssing w ith his frie nds. ” C hav ezthen ex it ed Pal omino’ s car and left in the Bl az er
. On J anuar y 22, 2007, Pal omino pic ked up Cha v ez and his brother Rub en Cha v ez( “R uben” ) at C hav ez ’s hous e. Sho rt ly the reafter, she w as pu lled over by a Brow nsvil le police of f icer. On crossexamina tion, Palom ino admitt ed that she of ten gav e Chavez mo ney fo r drugs. She also5

sta ted t hat a t t he ti me they w er e s eei ng eac h oth er , C hav ezw as als o s eei ng anot her
w oman. Rub en te sti fie d thathe w as not w it h C hav ezon t he ni g ht i n q uest ion

. The Stat e pla y ed for the j ur

y a re cordin g of a sta tement Rub en g av e to the p oli ce, but that re cordin g is not in the record bef ore us. Rube n test if ied that the Stat e an d the police coe rced him int o g iv ing the sta tement. The Stat e then q uest ion ed R uben ab out s ome of the s tatement s he m ade on the recording. Chav ez told Rube n tha t the re h ad bee n a f ight but Chavez did not s ay he w as inv olv ed i n the fig ht. R u b e n al so sta ted t hat h e had menti oned t o the inv est ig ators t hat C hav ezhad some s cratc hes on him b u t t hat C hav ezg oes fishi ng and
w orks in construct ion, im plyi n g t h a t tho se scratche s could ha v e be en ca used bythose act iv it ies and not from the fig ht. Jes se Pi nal es, an o ff ic er w ith the Brow nsv il le Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied th at on Janu ary22, 20 07, h e w ent to Chavez ’s residence to arrest Chavezpursua nt to an arrest
w ar ra nt. Officer

Pinal es par ked his unmarked ve hic le near the re si dence and obser v ed a
v ehi cl e approach the h ouse. O ff ic er Pi nal es saw

a female and tw o males ex itthe house , enter the v ehi cl e, an d dr iv e off

. He obs e rved t h a t the c ar had a broken tai ll ig ht an d
re que ste d a p atrol uni t s top t he v ehi cl e. After the t ra ff icst op oc cur re d, O ff ic er Pi nal es approache d t h e ve h ic le and not ic ed C hav ezsi tti ng i n the front pas seng er

se at. Officer Pi nal es then ar re ste d C hav ezand took hi m in to c ust ody

. Off icerP in a les i denti fied Palo min o as the driv er and Ruben as the b ack-sea t passe nger. On Jan uary 22, 200 7, Dalbe rto Luis de Leo n, an of f icer w ith the Brow nsvil le Police Depa rtme nt, went to Cha v ez’s hou se. At the hou se, he met Ju a n Ch avez(“ Juan ”), Cha v ez ’s father

. Juan cons ented to a search of t he house , and Off ic er de Leon se ar ched6

the h ouse. He found a sui tca se in Cha v ez ’s bedroom that had some dr ess shi rt s, sti ll on hang ers, folded up i n the su it cas e. Juan tol d hi m that the sui tca se found in Cha v ez ’s room a c t u a l l y b e l o n g e d to Ju a n w h o w a s pa c k i n g i ti n pr e p a r a t i o n to ta k e C h a v e z ’ s mo m o u t
- o ftow n for medic al tr eatment. Off ic er de Leon spok e w it h Rub en w ho i nformed hi m thatthe pack ed s uit cas e bel onged t o C h a vez who w as g oin g out of tow n to loo k for w or k. On
cross -e x aminat ion , O ff ic er de L eon sta ted t hat h e di d notfind a ny ev ide nce re lat ing to the murde r, su ch as blo ody cl othes or

a k nife, a t t he hous e. Cha v eztes ti fied that he w as at the house on Mi lpe Verde the nig ht Rod ri g uezw as murde re d butthatno fig ht occu rred. He st ated that he w ent behin d the hous e to “t ake a leak” and thathe did n ot see Rodriguezbeh ind th e ho use. Chav ez said th at he did not tell Pal omino that he stabbed any one. H e c lai med thatthe sui tca se found in his room bel ong ed to hi m and t hat he w as li v ing w it h hi s d ad bec ause he had re cent ly mov ed out of his ow n resi dence due to a fig ht w it h hi s c ommon-l aw w ife. He cl aimed thatR uben w as ly ing about Chav ez ’s plans to leav e tow n to loo k for w or k and that Ruben w as ly ing about Cha v ezsa y ing thathe w as in a fig ht. C hav ezst ated th a t h e wa s a m ember of the “V all ucos ,” a protec ti on g ang thatoperates onl y i n pr is on. He w as “o ne hundred percent ” Valluco . Chavezs h o we d t h e ju ry a tatto o on his back w hich read “Valluco” and also discusse d a tat too of

palm trees on his hand , statin g tha t the y stood for the “Va lley .” H e sai d tha t out si de of pr is on, h e i s a “ family man” and that the Val luc os do not hav e a “ code of si len ce. ” Cha v ezdec lared th at S anche zw as ly ing aboutthere hav ing been a fig ht an d about Chavezshowi ng up af

ter Fig uero a an d Pen a. He n ever said tha t anyone was “ne xt.” He f urthe r stated thathe did n ot sta b Rodriguez and tha t Palo min o w as ly ing w hen she said7

that he to ld her

he h ad been i n a fig ht. On rebu ttal, Di onicio Cortez , a lieute nan t w ith the Came ron Coun ty She riff ’s Of f ice in the j ail di v is ion , t est ified thathe i s a clas si ficat ion of ficer respo nsi ble f or

clas si fyi ng g ang members thatco me i nto t he j ail

. Lie utenantCortezw as an ex per t i n g ang i denti ficat ion

. He sta ted t hat w hil e the Val luc os w er e i nit ial ly org ani z ed as a protec ti on g ang and oper ated onl y to protec t i ts members w hil e the y w er e i n pr is on, t he Valluc o s now operate o n the “o uts ide ” and are eng ag ed i n dr ug smug g li ng and deal ing , burg lar ies , ro bber ies , and ca r the f t. Lieut ena nt Cortez te s t if ie d t hat the Va llucos do have a “code of silence,” w hich
means that the Vall ucos threat en snit ches w it h bodi ly i nju ry and ass aul t and ev en ex ecut e them. Li eutenan t C orteznote d tha t a Val luc o is a “fifty per cent er ” w hen he enters j ail but becomes a “ one hun dr ed- per cent er ” w hen he enters fed e ra l or st ate p ri son. A “o ne hundred percent er ” has tatt oos of pal m tr ees that form a “V .” Lieut enant Cor teztes ti fied that the p alm tr ees tatt ooed on C hav ez ’s hand re f e r to C hav ez ’s bei ng a “ one hun dr ed perce nte r” a n d s t a t e d t hat Chavezhas “RGV” tatto oed on his leg, w hich sta nds for “Ri o Grande V all ey

or R io Gr ande V all uco. ” Lieuten ant C ortezal so dis cus sed a di ff er ent t attoo on C hav ez ’s l eg , w hic h he desc ri bed a s th e t a ttoo of the Val luc o “ code of si len ce. ” Lie utenantC ortezfurth er tes ti fied th at t he Val luc os hav e formed a c ar theft ri ng to prov ide
cars t o the Zetas, a pow er ful, no rt her n M ex ic o dr ug g ang
. Lie utenantC orteztes ti fied th at if the Zet as w er e nothappy w it h s omeone on t h e U n it e d S tates si de of the border , t hey
w oul d as k t he Val luc os to do a hi t. T he jury f oun d Chavezguilty of m urde r, a nd the t rial cou rt se nte nced h im to life in pr is on. This appeal ens ued.8 II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W hen rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether

“‘ any rati onal tr ier

of fact coul d hav e found the essent ial elements of the c ri me bey ond a
reaso nab le dou bt’—no t w het her ‘[w e be liev e] th at th e evidence at the trial esta blished g uilt be yo n d a reason able dou bt.’” Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 5 12, 5 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979) ). “[ W ]e as ses s a ll of the evidence “‘ in the lig ht most fa v orab le to the prose cution .’” Id. (quo ti n g Jac ks on , 443 U .S. at 31 9.) “Af

ter giv ing proper def eren ce to th e factf inde r's role, we will upho ld the v erdict unl ess a rati onal factfinder must hav e had re asona ble doubt as to any es sent ial el ement.” Id. at51 8 (cit in g Nar

vai z v. Sta te , 840 S.W .2d 415 , 423 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92)). “Ev iden ce tha t is leg ally suf f icient, h owev er, can b e de em ed f actu ally insuf f icient in tw o w a ys: ( 1 ) th e ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on i s ‘ too w eak’ to suppo rtthe factf inde r's v erdict, or (2) conside ring conf licti ng e v i de nc e, t he f actf inde r's v erdict is ‘against the great w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence .’” Id. (quo ti n g W ats on v . St ate , 204 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ))

. In co n d u c t in g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y re vie w, we defer t o the j ur

y ’s findi ng s. Id. W e consid er a ll of t he evidence in a n eut ral lig ht an d w ill “f ind the evidence fa ctua lly insuf f icient w hen nece ssaryto ‘prevent ma nifest injust ice.’” Id. (qu o ti n g Cai

n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 407 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). W e m easure the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce based on a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Gr

otti v. Sta te , 27 3 S. W .3 d 27 3, 2 80
- 81 ( Tex . C r i m. App . 200 8). A hy pot het ically correct jury

charge “accurate ly

prom ulgates th e la w, is author iz ed by

the ind ic tment, does not unnec ess ar il y i ncrease the s tate' s b urden of proof or restrict the state 's the ories of liability , and ade quately describes the particular of fense9

for which the def end ant w as tried.” Id. I n a h y pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, t he el ements
o f m u rd e r u n d e r s e c t io n 1 9

. 0 2 (b )( 1 ) o f t h e p e n a l c o d e a re : (1 ) in t e n t io n a ll y o r k n o win gl y, (2 ) caus ing the death, ( 3) of an i ndi v idu al. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02( b) (1 ); see also Vasq uez

v. Sta te , N o. 13 -0 5- 531- CR , 200 8 W L 18225 19, a t * 13 ( Tex . Ap p.— Cor pus Ch ri s t i A p r. 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , p e t

. re f ’d ) ( m e m o
. o p
. , n o td e s ig n a t e d f o r p u b li c a t io n ). A d d it io n a ll y, “[ c]i rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as dir ectev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of an acto r, and circum stan tial evi den ce alon e can be suf f icien t t o esta blish guilt.” Clayton v. State , 235 S.W .3d 772 , 778 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). III . D I S CUS S I ON On ap peal , C hav ezarg ues that the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s c onv ic ti on. Spec ific all y , he arg ues that “[ n]o p hy si cal ev ide nce w as int ro duced at t ri al w hic h es tabl is hed t hat .

. . C hav ezco mmitt ed th e murder of Stev en Rodr ig uez , and onl y the uncor ro bor ated tes ti mony of an ex -l ov e r and a ‘w it ness ’ w ho admi tted he w as ‘[ h]i g h’ at th e t im e w as int ro duced i n an attemptto impl ic ate [ Cha v ez ] i n the cr ime. ” Therefor e, “ the e v ide nce is leg all y [and factual ly] ins uff ic ien t to suppo rtthe jur y ’s v er dic t.” W h il e itis t ru e t h a t“n o p h ys ic a l e v i d e n c e ” l in k s Ch a ve z t o Ro d ri gu e z’s m u rd e r, we dis ag re e tha t t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent. T he reco rd rev eals th at Pa lom ino w as “seeing” Chavez at the time of the m urde r. Cha ve z t o ld h e r th at he had bee n in a f ight and ha d stab bed some one . On crossex aminat ion , w hen ask ed w hether she found out that Cha v ez w as “s eei ng ” another w oman the e nti re ti me he w as “s eei ng ” Pal omino, Pal omino sai d tha t she had

. Cha v ez ’s co unsel then inq uired w het h er

thatfact made Pal omino “h appy or unhapp y .” Sh e ans w er ed, “ It10

doesn ’tmatte r. ” Sanc hezadmi tted that he w as usi ng dr ug s a nd al cohol the nig ht t hat R odr ig uezw as murde re d. He saw

C hav ezfig hti ng w it h R odr ig uezand obser v ed Ch a vez and Pena
ru nni ng to the b a ck yard a fter R odr ig uezw ent i nsi de th e hous e; ho w ev er , he did not see
w hat t ra nspi re d behi nd th e hous e. Sanc hezag re ed th at he w as int ox ic ated that nig ht an d tha t som etim es w hen he is intoxicated , he might see and hear things incorrectly. How ever, on re- directex aminat ion , Sa nchezst ated that he w as able to re member w hat h appened that nig ht an d tha t he w as tel li ng the tr uth. Chavezconte nds tha t the f ollowi ng e v iden ce cont radicts Palo min o’s and Sanch ez’s tes ti mony : on th e 9- 1- 1 cal l, Rod ri g uez did not ide nti fy Cha v ezas hi s a ss ail ant; Dr . F ar ley did not find any

ev ide nce that Rod ri g uezhad been i n a fig ht, ev en th oug h “ [s] o meti mes [medi cal ex aminers] don’ t al w ay s s ee cont usi ons if the person die s fair ly q uic kl y ”; Officer Br ion es, i n hi s ex aminat ion of C hav ez , did not uncov er any ev ide nce that Cha v ezhad been in a fig ht w it h any one; no murde r w eapon w as found ty ing Cha v ez to the murde r; and non e of the bl ood s amples tak en from t he s cene or from the Blaz er

indi cat ed that C hav ezhad bee n f ighting w ith Rodriguez or w as oth erw ise respon s ib le for Rodriguez ’s murde r. Addi ti onal ly , C hav ezst ated at t ri al that he ow ned t he par ti all y pac ked sui tca se and had
re c e n t ly m o ve d o u to f

h is o wn re s id e n c e
. He a s s e rt e d t h a t , c o n t ra ry to Ru b e n ’s t e s t im o n y, he w as not g oin g out of tow n. Des pit e C hav ez ’s ch all eng es to t he abov e e vide n ce, the re cord c ontai ns other evidence f ro m wh ic h the jury could have conclud ed th at Cha v ez com mitt ed th e mu rder. The r ecord c ontai ned ev ide nce that Fi g ueroa, P ena, and t h e m a n from t he Si lv er ado11

pic kup tr uck cal led Rod ri g uez a sni tch

. Rod ri g uez w as to prov ide infor mati on to Off ic er de Leon reg ar din g an auto theft r ing

. Cha v ezw as a member of the V all ucos , a g ang thatw as inv olv ed i n s teal ing ca rs
. T h e V a ll ucos mai ntai n a “ code of si len ce, ” w hic h means that sni tch es ar e threatened w it h bodi ly i nju ry and ar e s ometi mes e xec uted. C hav ezhad a tatt oo repr esent ing thi s “ code of si len ce. ” And, Sanc heztol d Officer Or ti z that Cha v ezw as
w ear ing su rg ic al g lov es and had blo ody hands w hen he came r unni ng from t he bac ky ar d. Al l of t h i s e v i d e n c e a n d t e s t i mo n y w a s b e fo re t h e j u r y , a n d i t i s t h e j u r

y ’ s d utyto
w eig h the evi dence and to ev alu ate the cr edi bil it y of the w it ness es. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . arts . 36.13 (Ver non 2007), 38.0 4 ( Ver non 197 9) ; Lanco n v . St ate , 253 S. W .3d 699, 707 ( Tex. Crim . Ap p. 20 08)

. “‘ Appel lat e c our ts shoul d afford al most compl ete def er ence to a jur

y 's dec is ion w hen t hat d eci si on i s b ased upon an ev alu ati on of credibility.’” Gar

za v . St ate , 290 S.W .3d 4 89, 4 96 ( Tex

. Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2009, pet.
re f ’d ) (qu o ti n g Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 705 ). Be caus e w e r ely on t he c old r ecord and the jury is prese nt to hea r the testim ony, the jury is in the best positio n to j u d ge a witness’s
credi bil it y . Id. “ The ju ry may ch oose to be li ev e s ome tes ti mony and dis bel iev e oth er testim ony.” Id. W hil e the re i s n o p h y si cal ev ide nce li nki ng C hav ezto Rod ri g uez ’s murder , t her e w as subs tanti al ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce for th e j ur y to cons ide r. See Cl

ayton , 235 S.W .3d a t 7 7 8 (n o t in g t h a t“c ir c u m s t a n t ia l e vid e n c e a lo n e ca n b e su f f ic ie n tt o e s t a b li s h gu il t ”)

. A s we must, w e def er

to the j ur y ’s r esol uti on of the confli cts i n the ev ide nce, and w e c oncl ude t hat the ev iden ce is legally

and factu ally s u f

f ic ient to supp ort the jury ’s v erdict. W e overrule Chavez ’s appe llate issue s.12 IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led C hav ez ’s appel lat e i ssues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial
cour t.

_________ _________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 15th day of Jul y , 201 0.