C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
ROBERT CORTEZ MATL OCK, Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 27 -C R

Appea l from the 380th J udicial District Court of Col lin County , T e xas (TC# 380-82616-05)

O P I N I O N Appellant Robert Cortez Matlock a ppeals his conviction for

burg lary of a ha bitation. A jury sentenc ed Appe llant to 5 y ear s’ imprisonment in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e . O n a pp e a l, A pp e lla nt c ha lle ng e s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of his motion to s uppress e vidence and the suff iciency of the e vidence supporting the conviction. Scott Cox well was the manag er at Mr. J im’s Piz za in Pl ano on Jul y 8, 2005. Mr . Co xwe ll t e sti fi e d th at at a pp ro ximate ly

te n mi nute s b e fo re c los ing , App e lla nt c ame in
wea ringa ski mask and g loves. Appellant pointed a g un at Mr. Cox well and a co-w orker , y elled at them to g et on the floor, a nd demande d the money

from the r eg ister. Appellant pr essed the g un to Mr. Cox well’s hea d while the other employ ee pulled the cash out of the reg ister. The employ ee ha

nded the c ash over

the counter

to Appellant, who then turne d and ra n out of the sto re . Imme diate ly

a ft e r A pp e lla nt f le d, Mr . Co xwe ll c a lle d 9 -1 -1 . T he de sc ri pti on he g ave to Plano police was of

a male, 5' 10" to 5' 11", be tween 200 a nd 205 pounds, with disti nctive eyes.-2-

The individual’s eyes we re the only part of the robber ’s fa ce not c overe d by the mask and the only fac ial feature Mr. Coxwell could identify . Howeve r, Mr. Coxwell was also able to desc ribe the gun used duringthe cr ime as a c hrome c olored re volver with a w ood g rain g rip. The jury was told that there had bee n a ra sh of stolen vehicle s in the are a ar ound Appellant’s ne ighbor

hood in Plano. On J uly

15, one we ek followingthe robbe ry at Mr. Ji m’s Piz za, the home of Da

n and Sandra

Self was bur g larized by

Appellant and a

n acc omplice named Cameron B lack. Mr. a

nd Mrs. Self awoke to discover their two vehicles, a

2000 Chevrolet Tahoe and a 2005 N issan Pathfinder, we re missing from their g ara g e. The couple r eporte d the thefts, and police investigators enter ed the Ta hoe and Pathf

inder’s infor

mation into a police data ba se so that of

fi c e rs c ou ld i de nti fy

the sto le n v e hic le s if

the y ha pp e ne d to c ome up on

the m. Two day s later, on July

17, the Pathfinder w as located not far from the Self’ s home and police immediately

set up surveillanc e. At appr ox imately 10:45 p.m., the surveilling of fice r, Offic er John Hoffman, sa w a Mitsubishi Endeavor pull up beside the Pathfinder a nd saw two ind ivi du a ls l e ave the Mit su bis hi a nd g e t in to t he Pathf ind e r. Th e of

fi c e r w a s sp ott e d in

his
unmark e d p atr ol c ar, the Mit su bis hi a nd the sto le n Pathf

ind e r s pe d o ff

wi th O ff ic e r H of fm an in hot pursuit. Office r Hoff man testified at tria l that he estimated the Pathfinde r must have be en tr ave lin g be tw e e n n ine ty

and on e hund re d mi le s p e r h our. Mo me nts late r, the Pathf ind e r l os t control attemptingto make a tur n. The SUV jumped the c urb, trave led ac ross the y ard of a private r esidenc e, and plowe d straig ht into the bedroom of a sma ll child. The Pathfinder’ s occupa nts fled the sce ne immediately following the cr ash. A ne ighbor witnessed the two r

unning
awa y . She descr ibed one of

the flee ing individuals as a fema le and late r identified that pe rson as Emily J ohnson. The other

individual in the stol en Pathfinder was late r identified through DNA-3-

found on a c iga

r on the drive r’s side f

loorboard a s Cameron B lack. Meanwhile, two other off icer s who wer e re sponding to the sc ene of the ac cident re ceive d
a dis patc h to Ap pe lla

nt’ s h ome wh ic h w a s n e arb y wh e re the c ra shoc c ur

re d. Th e dis patc he r t old the offic ers they

wer e beingsent to the reside nce of a suspec t believed to be involved w ith the stolen Pathfinder that ha d just crashe d. Offic er Cliff Tur rubiarte was one of the off icer s dispatched to Appe llant’s residenc e. Af ter knoc king on A

ppellant’s door w ith no response, the other off icer noticed the g ara g e lig ht switched on and of f abr uptly . The off

icer s moved towards the g ara g e as the door wa s beingraised. O nce ope n, Offic er Tur rubiarte saw the Mitsubishi Endeavor with sever al occ upants inside and Appe llant standing in the door way leadinginto the house. One of the pe ople inside the Mitsubishi was identified as Emily J ohnson, the fema le who had fle d from the sc ene of the ac cident. The Mitsubis hi’s front passe ng er w as B randon Ware
. Mr. Ware later a dmitted to participatingin the robber y of Mr. Jim ’s and the Self home. Two day s after

the cr ash, Ms. J ohnson and Mr. B lack g ave statements to Detec tive J eff Kra nz of the Plano Pol ice De partment. Ms. Johns on advised De tective Kr anz that about two
wee ks prior, Appe llant had robbe d Mr. J im’s Piz za when it was a bout to close wea

ringa ski mask. She stated that B randon Ware was drivingthe ca r that nig ht, and that Mr. B lack, a nother g irl, and her self we re involved in the pla n. They dropped A

ppellant off at Mr. J im’s and met b a c k a tAp p e l l an t ’ s h o u s e a f

t e r th e r o b b e r

y. Mr. B lack infor

med Dete ctive Kr anz that he and Appe llant had stolen a Chevr olet suburban f

rom a re sidence and lef

t it parked on a

street ne arby . He a lso stated that Appellant ke pt a bla c k b a c kp a c k c on ta ini nga sk i ma sk , g lov e s, and

mul tip le se ts o f c ar k e y s in his bedroom. On July

20, 2005, Detec tive Kra

nz obtained a sea

rch w arr ant base d on informationAppellant’s c onvictions for ag g ravated robbe ry and org anized criminal ac tiviti es ar e 1 addre ssed in two companions to this appeal. Se e Ma tlo c k v . S tate , N o. 08 -0 7- 00 22 5- CR (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 16, 2009, no pet.h.) a nd Ma tlo c k

v . S tate , N o. 08 -0 7- 00 22 6- CR (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 16, 2009, no pet.h.). -4- from Emily

J ohnson and Camer on Bla ck. The sear ch of A ppellant’s home y

ielded a .32 c aliber chrome revolve r with a wood grip, matchingthe desc ription of the gun used in the robbe ry of Mr. J im’s Piz za. The police a lso located a pair of g loves, a ba ckpac k, and a boot c ontaining
se ve ra l se ts o f c ar k e y s. A month following the robber y at Mr. Ji m’s, Plano Poli ce D etec tive Billy Meeks interviewe d the manag er of Mr. J im’s Piz za, Scott C ox well. He show ed Mr. Coxwell a photo of the g un se ize d d ur ingthe se arc h o f A

pp e lla nt’ s g a ra g e and a ph oto of Ap pe lla nt. Mr . Co xwe ll identified the gun as the one used in the robbe ry , and although he could only rec all the robbe r’s ey es, he told De tective Me eks that the e y es of the ma n in the photo matched those of the robbe r. Mr . Co xwe ll l ate r i de nti fi e d App e lla nt d ur inghis te sti mony

a t tr ia l a s th e pe rs on

wh o r ob be d h im at Mr. Ji m’s on J uly

8, 2005. Ap pe lla nt w a s c ha

rg e d w itha g g ra

vate d r ob be ry , b ur g lary

of a ha bit a tio n, and

tw o c ounts of org anized criminal ac tiviti es base d on the eve nts of J uly 8 and Jul y

14, 2005. Appellant wa s

1 convicted of

all char g es and se ntence d to serve e ight year s’ for the ag g ravated robbe ry , five y ear s’ for bur g lary , and five y ear s’ for the eac h count of e ng ag ing in or g anized criminal
a c tiv iti e s. Ap pe lla

nt r a ise s tw o is su e s o n a

pp e a l. I n I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt
err ed by denying his motion to suppress evidenc e bec ause the war rant a nd sear ch of his re sidence
wa s n ot s up po rt e d b y

pr ob a ble c a us e . In I ssu e Tw o, Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th e e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly insufficient to support the c onvictions beca use the a ccomplice witness testimony was insuffic ient-5-

to i de nti fy

Ap pe lla nt a s th e pe rp e tr ator

of the of fe ns e s. In I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt a lle g e s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in de nyinghis mot ion

to s up pr e ss evidenc e fr om the sear ch and se izure of Appellant’ s residenc e. We re view a tr ial court’s r uling on a motion to suppress with a bifurc ated standa rd, g iving a lmost t otal defe renc e to the trial
co urt ’s d et erm i n at i o no f h i s t o ri ca l fa ct s , an d re v i ew i n g de novo the cour t’s application of the law to those fac ts. Se e Ma

x we ll v . S tate , 7 3 S. W.3 d 2 78 , 2 81 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). Whe n, a s in this case, the tr ial court doe s not file expli cit finding s of fa ct we w ill review the e vidence in the light most favor able to the tria l court’s ruling
. Id
. Appellant moved to suppre ss all phy sical evide nce disc overe d duringthe Plano Police Depa rtment’s sea

rch of his residenc e on Jul y

20, 2005. Appellant ar g ued that the e vidence was seized illega lly

beca use the sea

rch w arr ant was not supporte d by probable cause . Appellant contends that De tective Kr anz’s aff idavit was def

icient bec ause it re lies on information provided by criminal informa

nts and was not ver ified bef ore c onducting the sea

rch. Pr ob a ble c a us e to s up po rt

the iss ua nc e of a se arc h w arr ant e xists wh e re the fa c ts
su bmi tte d to the ma g istrate are su ff ic ie nt t o ju sti fy

a c on c lus ion

that th e ob

je c t of the se arc h is probably on the pre mises to be sear ched at the time the war rant wa s issued. Cas sia s v . S tate , 719 S.W. 2d 58 5, 58 7 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ). Th e Te xas C od e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure re qu ir e s th a t a
sear ch wa rra nt be supported by

a sworn a ffidavit settingforth substantial fa ct establishing probable cause . See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 18.01(b) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The aff idavit must i nclude suff

icient fa cts to establish probable c ause: (1) that a spec ific off

ense ha s been c ommitt ed, (2) that the spec ifically descr ibed prope rty

or items that are to be-6- sear ched f

or or se ized constitut e evide nce of that offe nse or evidenc e that a pa

rticular pe rson committed that offe nse, and (3) that the prope rty

or items constituting evide nce to be sear ched f or or seized are located a

t or on the par

ticular pe rson, place , or thing to be sear ched. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 18.01(c ). We examine the totality

of the c ircumstance s to determine whe ther proba ble ca uses exis ts. Se e Di

x on v . S tate , 2 06 S.W. 3d

61 3, 61 6 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ma tam or os v . S tate , 901 S.W .2d 470, 478 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). When a probable cause aff idavit specifies a

named inf or mant a s su

pp lyingthe inf

or matio n u po n w hic h p ro ba

ble c a us e is b a se d, the a ff

ida vit is sufficie nt if it is s ufficie ntly detailed to sug g est direc t knowledg e on the infor mant’s par

t. W ilk e rso n v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 542, 545 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), cert. de nied , 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct . 1590, 94 L .Ed.2d 779 (1987). I n addition, when a na

med informant make s a dec laration
a g a ins t th e ir

pe na l inte re st i n f

ro nt o f a n o ff ic e r, the se c ir c ums tanc e s in dic a te a su bs tanti a l ba sis that the informant’ s statements are trustworthy
. Se e He nn essy v . S tate , 660 S.W .2d 87, 91 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). In th is i ns tanc e , D e te c tiv e Kr anz’ s a ff ida vit state s th a t Ms . Johns on

and Mr . B la c k c ame forwa rd, identified themse lves, and a dmitted to their participation in committing the cha rg ed offe nses alongwith Appellant. Acc ordingto the war rant a ffidavit, both individuals advised Detec tive Kra

nz that they

participated in the robbe ry at Mr. Ji m’s Piz za and the burg lary of the vehicles a long w ith Appellant. Fur thermore , Ms. J ohnson and Mr. B lack we re a ble to descr ibe the items of intere st, as well as the loc ations of the items within Appellant’s re sidence based on their per sonal knowledg e.The indictment cha rg ed Appe llant with: 2 ( C O U N T I)
-7- In s um, tw o s e pa

rate and ind e pe nd e nt a c c omp lic e wi tne sse s g ave de ta ile d s tate me nts reg ardingthe potential evidenc e located in Appellant’s house , and their state ments included admissions that they

had both eng ag ed in cr iminal activities. There fore , based on the totality of the circ umstances, we conclude Detec tive Kra nz’s demonstrated the ve rac ity and dire ct knowledg e of the witnesses and the war rant c ontained suff

icient information on which the mag istrate could ha

ve conc luded proba

ble ca use existed. Accor dingly , I ssue One is ove rruled. In I ssu e Tw o, Ap pe lla

nt a lle g e s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his convictions. In a fa ctual suff iciency revie w, we c onsider all the e vidence in a neutra l light. Ro be rts v . S

tate , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Evidence is factua lly insufficient if: (1) the e vidence supporting the verdic t is so weak that the ve rdict see ms clear ly wrongand manifestly

unjust; or (2) the evide nce suppor ting the ve rdict is outweig hed by the g reat weig ht
and pr e po nd e ra

nc e of c on tr ary e vid e nc e , r e nd e ri ngthe ve rd ic t c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust. Id . In addition, our revie w should not substantially intrude upon the fa ct finder ’s role a s the sole judg e of the weig ht and cr edibility g iven to witness testimony
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W. 3d 1, 7 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se e als o M ar sh all v . S tate , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)(fa ctual suff iciency revie w still requires “due defe renc e” be g iven to the jury ’s deter

minations). Specifica lly , Appellant ar g ues that the State fa iled to car ry its burden to identify Appellant as the individual who committed the char g ed off enses be cause the State’s evide nce of identity was limited to acc omplice witnesses testimony
. A conviction ca nnot rest on the 2intentionally and knowing ly , without the consent of Sandr a Self, the owner the re of , e nte r a ha bit atio n w iththe int e nt t o c omm it the ft , atte mpt to c omm it the ft , and commit theft of pr operty , namely : a 2000 Chevrolet Ta hoe; ( C O U N T II) intentionally

and knowing ly , without the effe ctive conse nt of Dan Self, the owner the re of , e nte r a ha bit atio n w iththe int e nt t o c omm it the ft , atte mpt to c omm it the ft , and commit theft of pr operty , namely : a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder
. -8- testimony of an a ccomplice unless corr oborate d by other e vidence that tends to connec t the defe ndant with the offe nse committed, and the c orrobor ation is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offe nse. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . a rt . 3 8. 14 (V e rn on

20 05 ). Th e te st for de termining whether

sufficie nt corrobor ating evidenc e exists asks whether, a bsent the
acc omplice witness testimony , the re maining e vidence tends to connec t the defe ndant to the offe nse. Se e Mc

Du ff v . S tate , 939 S.W .2d 607, 612 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Howeve r, the nonacc omplice evidenc e nee d not be suffic ient itself to establish the acc used’s guilt bey ond a
rea sonable doubt. He rn an de z v . S tate , 939 S.W .2d 173, 176 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Proof that
connec ts appellant to a we apon used in the of fense is sufficient cor

roborative evidenc e. See Coc k ru m v . S tate , 758 S.W .2d 577, 582 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). In deter mining the stre ng th of a particula r item of non-a ccomplice evidenc e, we examine: (1) its reliability or believa

bility ; and (2) the stre ng th of its tendency to connec t the defe ndant to the cr ime. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 234 S.W .3d 43, 54 (Tex.App--El Paso 2007, no pet.) , c iti ng He rro n v . S

tate , 86 S.W .3d 621, 632 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). As a pre liminary

matter re g ardingAppellant’s c onviction for burg lary of a ha bitation, the State argue s th at Ms . Joh ns on wa s n ot a

n a c c omp lic e and

the re fo re he r t e sti mony

is n ot s ub

je c t to the a c c omp lic e wi tne ss r

ule . In o rd e r t o b e c la ssi fi e d a s a n a c c omp lic e , o ne mus t be su sc e pti ble-9-

to prosecution for

the same of

fense with which the def

endant is cha

rg ed. Se e Ga me

z v . S tate , 73 7 S. W.2 d 3 15 , 3 22 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ); Tucker v . S tate , 689 S.W .2d 235, 237 (Tex.App.-- El Pa so 19 85 , p e t. r e f’ d) . Co mmi ssi on of a dif fe re nt, “ do wn str e am” of

fe ns e , e ve n w ith knowledg e of the prior cr iminal act cha rg ed ag ainst the defe ndant will not suffice. Tucker , 689 S.W .2d at 237. While her admissions to Detective K ranz indicated that Ms. J ohnson was involved with the robber

y at Mr. Ji m’s pizz a, ther e is no evidenc e of a ny aff irmative ac tions on her pa rt to promote, enc ourag e, assist, or par ticipate in the burg lary

of the Self’ s vehicles. Although Ms. Johnson may be subjec t to prosecution for the offe nse of una uthorized use of a
ve hic le by

us ingthe Ni ssa

n Pathf ind e r w ithMr . B la c k o n July 17 , th is i s a

“ do wn str e am” of

fe ns e off the a ctual burg lary , and does not make Ms. J ohnson an ac complice to the g reater off ense. See id . Acc ording ly , Ms. J ohnson’s testimony need not be eliminated from c onsideration under the
acc omplice witness rule be cause there is no evidence to support her c lassification as a n
acc omplice to the burg lary of the Self’ s home. See G amez , 7 37 S.W. 2d a t 32 2; see also Tucke r , 689 S.W .2d at 237 (holdingthere was no e rror in refusingto instruct the jury reg ardingthe
a c c omp lic e wi tne ss r

ule re g ard inga

pa rt ic ula r i nd ivi du a l be c a

us e the re wa s n o e vid e nc e to indicate that individual was a n acc omplice to the cha

rg ed off ense.) Eliminating only

Mr. B lack a

nd Mr. Ware’ s testimony from conside ration, the other evidenc e that tends to conne ct Appellant to the bur g lary offe nses includes: (1) Ms. J ohnson’s testimony that in mid-J uly

Appellant wa s driving a

Chevrolet Ta

hoe; (2) e vidence that the Tahoe Appellant wa s driving matched the de scription of the Ta hoe stolen fr om the Self’s home; (3) the Tahoe was located in the par king lot at Appe llant’s sister’s apa rtment; (4) a fter c rashingthe Nissan Pathfinder, Ms. Johnson testi fied that she sought refug e in Appellant’ s house; (5) the-10-

Pathf ind e r w a s p ark e d a

sh or t di sta nc e fr om A

pp e lla nt’ s h ou se ; ( 6) Ap pe lla

nt w a s in the ve hic le that dropped Ms. Johnson and Mr. Blac k off at the Pathfinder pr ior to the cra sh; (7) evide nce that it was Appellant’s pla

n, afte r the Pathfinder

cra shed, to tell the police they did not know who was driving the vehicle , to try and prote ct Mr. B lack; (8) Appellant wa s one of the individuals police found trying to lea

ve his house af

ter the Pathfinde r cr ash; (9) the Mitsubis hi in Appellant’s g ara g e wa s the same Mitsubishi the surveillance office rs witnessed dr op Ms. J ohnson and Mr . B la c k o ff

at th e Pathf

ind e r; and (1 0) the de te c tiv e s’ dis c ov e ry of an a sso rtme nt o f v e hic le key s hidden in a boot in Appellant’s be droom, combined with evide nce that there w as no for ced entry damag e to the Ta

hoe. Ha ving e liminated the acc omplice witness testimony from our analy sis, we conc lude that the non-a ccomplice evidenc e does te nd to connec t Appellant to the
o f f e n s e s u f f i c i e n t l y t o c o r

r o b o r at e th e t e s t i m o n y o f th e a c c o mp l i c e w i tn e s s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, Appellant’s f

actua l insufficienc y

argument fails, and I ssue Two is over ruled. By cross-point, the State r equests that this Court modify the trial cour

t’s judgme nt which
or de rs Ap pe lla

nt’ s a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , e ng a g ingin c ri min a l a c tiv iti e s, and burg lary se nte nc e s to
run conse cutively . The State c oncede s that Appellant wa s not convicted of the ty pes of of fense s which re quire c onsecutive se ntencing
. See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 3.03(b)( Ver non Supp. 2008)(whe n an ac cused is convic ted of multiple offe nses ar ising out of the sa me cr iminal episode sentenc es run c oncurr ently unless the sentenc e is for a n intox ication, solicitation of a minor, or sexual offense) . This Court has the authority to modify

a trial c ourt’s judg ment and af firm the judgme nt as modified. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.2(b). We there fore modify the trial cour

t’s j u d g m e n tan d

o r d e r Ap p e l l an t ’ s s e n t e n c e s t o r unc o n c ur r e n t l y. Havingoverr

uled both of Appe llant’s issues, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt as-11-

modified. September 16, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. C arr, J
. (N o tP art i ci p at i n g) (Do Not Publish)