CAUSE NO. 13-14-00508-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS DAVID VASQUEZ

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 117 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NUECES COUNTY, th TEXAS, IN TRIAL CAUSE NO. 12-CR-2734-B

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TRAVIS BERRY State Bar No. 24059194 P.O. Box 6333 Corpus Christi, Texas 78466 Telephone: (361) 673-5611 Facsimile: (361) 442-2562 travisberrylaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 13-14-00508-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/6/2015 11:52:40 AM DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERKIDEN TITYOF INTE RES TED PA RTIE S

Purs uant t o T ex as Ru le of Appe llate P ro ce dur e 38. 1( a) , Appe llant l ist s th e fo llo w ing pe rs ons w ho h av e anint er es t i n th e ap pe al : JUD GE: H on. S an dr a W atts

117 District C ourt th 901 L eo pard Co rp us C hr ist i, T ex as 784 01 PA RTIE S: COU NS EL F OR AP PE LLA NT: D av id V as que z - Appe llant K y le H oe lsc he r (T ri al ) T D C: 180 4598 T ex as Bar N o. 240 6650 8 T or re s U nit 505 S W at er S t. - S te . 525 125 Pr ivate Ro ad

430 3 Co rp us C hr ist i, T ex as 784 01 H ondo , T ex as 788 61 T el ep hone : (3 61) 434 -0 814 T ravis Be rr

y ( Appe al ) T ex as Bar N o. 240 5919 4 P. O . Bo x 63 33 Co rp us C hr ist i, T X 784 66- 6333 T el ep hone : ( 361) 673 -5 611 The S tate of T exas - Appellee COU NS EL F OR THE S TAT E: Mark S kur ka Fr an k E rr ic o ( T ri al ) Nuece s CountyDistrict A ttorney Assistant District A ttorney T ex as Bar N o. 184 7557 0 T ex as Bar N o. 066 4895 0 901 L eo pard

- Rm . 206 Co rp us C hr ist i, T ex as 784 01 T el ep hone : (3 61) 888 -0 410 ii.TAB LE OF CO NTE NTS

I D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L ....... ....... ....... ....... ii. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . iii . I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... iv. S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... v. I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... vi. S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 1 A . S t a t e ’ s E v i d e n c e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 B . D e f

e n s e E v i d e n c e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 6 C . C l o s i n g A r g u m e n t s ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 8 D . J u d g e m e n tan dS e n t e n c e ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9 S U M M A RY O F A R G U M E N T ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 11 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A R G U M E N T ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 14 IS SU E : Whe the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o pr ove Appe llant u s e dakn i f

e i n th e c o mm i s s i o n o f

ar o b b e ry? C O N C L U S I O N ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 18 P RA Y E R F O R R E L I E F ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 18 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E RV I C E ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 19 C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E.............. ....... ....... ...... 20

iii .IND EX OF AU THORITIES

CA SES P AGE B rook s v . Sta te , 323 S . W . 3d 8 93 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 2010 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Clay ton v . Sta te , 235 S . W . 3d 7 72 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 2007 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Co lli er v . Sta te , 999 S . W . 2d 7 79 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 199 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14, 18 Ja ck son v. V irg ini a, 4 4 3 U . S . 3 0 7 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 12 Lo ck et t v . Sta te , 874 S . W . 2d 8 10 ( T ex . App. -D al la s 19 94, pe t. r ef ' d) . . . . . . . . . 15 M cC ain v . Sta te , 22 S . W . 3d 4 97 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Moff v State (Apr il 7, 200 4, CC A N o. 134 3- 03) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M oral es v . Sta te , 633 S . W . 2d 8 66 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tu ck er v . Sta te , 2 7 4 S . W . 3 d6 8 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 16 W ill iam s v . Sta te , 235 S . W . 3d 7 42 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 STA TUT ES A ND RU LES P AGE T e x a s P e n a l C o d e § 2 9 . 0 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 12, 18 T e x a s P e n a l C o d e § 2 9 . 0 3 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 1, 12, 14

iv.TO THIS HON ORA BLE C OUR T OF AP PE ALS : STA TEM ENT OF THE C AS E Appe llant, D av id V as que z, w as a cc use d by ind ic tm en t onA ugus t 17 , 201 2, of Aggravate d Robbery

under Te xas Penal Code §29.03, a first degree felony . ( CR 6) O n F eb ru ar

y 26, 201 3, Appe llant’ s c as e w as tr ie d to aj ur y a nd h e w as f

ound gui lty . O n F eb ru ar

y 27, 201 3, Appe llant w as se nte nc ed by the tr ia l c ourt t o tw en ty five (25) y ears in the Institution al D ivisio n of the Te xas Depar tm ent of Crim inal Jus tic e. ( CR

123 , 188 )

v.ISSU ES P RES ENT ED

Whe the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o pr ove Appe llant u se d akni fe in the c o mm i s s i o n o f

ar o b b e ry?

vi.Volume 3 (RR3) of the r eporte r’s re cord c ontains all trial proce eding s and Volume 4 1 (RR4) contains all sentenc ing pr ocee dings. 1 STA TEM ENT OF FA CTS O n Augus t 17 , 201 2, Appe llant, D av id V as que z, w as c harg ed by ind ic tm en t of f ir st d eg re e ag gr av at ed

r obbe ry , in vio la tio n of

P en al Co de §29 . 03, a lle ge d to ha ve oc curr ed

on N ove m

be r 9, 201 1. ( CR

6) T he S ta te a lle ge d th at Appe llant ro bbe d vi ct im

P eg gy Ro ot w ithade ad ly

w ea pon as she le ft

w ork a t F aj itavil le Re sta ur an t l oc at ed

on N orth B ea chin Co rp us C hr ist i, T ex as . Appe llant p le d no t gui lty to the a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry c harg e an d th e ca se w as tr ie d to aj ur y . ( RR 3 - 20) 1 T he S ta te be gan by de sc ri bin g it s ve rs ionof

the f ac ts o f thi s c as e, that the vic tim w as a cc ost ed

by appe llant w ie ldi ng a

kni fe in the park ing lot

a ro und 9:0 0 p. m . . Af igh t e nsue d be tw ee n vi ct im a nd a ppe llant whe re in v ic tim

ga ine d c ontro l over the knife, but w as then beaten by appellant and los t control of the knife. A fter ap pe llant atte m

pte d bu t f ai le d to ge t the vic tim

int o he r ve hic le , appe llant l ef t the sc en e in the vic tim ’ s ve hic le . ( RR 3 - 22- 24) T he vic tim w as able to re tur

n to the re sta ur an t w he re she w orks and s ee k he lp f ro m c o- w orke rs . ( RR 3 - 24) At the sce ne the night of the attack, the victim described him

to the poli ce as be ing ne ar ly

six ( 6) f ee t t al l and n earl y

200 pounds. T he f

oll ow ing day , the vic timAll exhi bits were r equeste d by Appellant and or dere d by the trial cour

t to be a par

t of 2 the appe llate re cord. V olume Five of the re porter’ s rec ord lists these exhibi ts, but the Nuece s County District Clerk’s off

ice wa s unable to find these photo exhi bits for inclusion in the rec ord.

2 de sc ri be d he r atta ck er

a s be ing f

ive f oot thr ee inc he s ta ll an d aro und 150 poun ds. (RR3 - 25, 95) T he S ta te c los ed it s op en ing a rg um en t by statin g th at

blo od f ound ins ide the ve hic le w as am at chto ap pe llant and tha t the vic tim pic ke d a ppe llant out of af orm al pol ic e lin e- up. ( RR 3 - 25, 26) T he de fe nse r es er ve d it s op en ing state m en t un til a ft er

the c los e of

the S ta te ’ s c as e. ( RR 3 - 27) A. State ’s Eviden ce 1. Non- Vict im Testim ony Of ficer Macias of the Corpus Christi Police Depar tm ent (herea fter C.C .P .D .) testified that he arr ived on th e scene to assist as O ffice r Re vis attended to the vic tim

ins ide the r es taur an t. O ff ic er Ma ci as too k ph oto s ( St at e’ s e xhi bit s 1 - 8) of the sc en e w hic h de pic te d bl ood sta ins a ro und the a re a of the a lle ge d a tta ck . 2 (RR3 - 30-35) Next Rose Mary Blanton, a C .C. P. D. crim e scene investigator, t es t i fi ed th at s h e t o o kth e p h o t o s o f t h e v i ct i m ’s i n ju ri es d ep i ct ed i n St at e’s ex hib its 9 thr ough35. ( RR 3 - 37, 38) Of ficer Revis testified about takin g statem ents from the victim

who w as ve ry dis or ie nte d th e nig ht o f he r atta ck w hic h e xpl ai ns h er

dif fe ri ng d es cr ipt ion s of he r atta ck er . ( RR 3 - 95) Cr im e Sc en e te ch nic ian D ie go R ive ra te sti fi ed that he3

t o o kth e p h o t o s o f t h e v i ct i m ’s v eh i cl e a ft eri twa s p u l l ed fr o m th e w at er(S t at e’s ex hi bi ts 38 - 58 ) (RR 3 - 1 00 - 10 7) . C.C .P .D . investigator Gay le Morgan, Nueces County District A ttorney investig ators Craig H ill and Gary W itherspoo n, nurse W arre n W alker, and Te xas D ep ar tm en t of P ubl ic S af

ety la b te ch nic ian L isa

Bay lor , a ll te sti fi ed

a s to the takin g of the blo od e vid en ce and the c ha in o f cu sto dy of the blo od e vid en ce . T he ir te sti m ony on the blo od e vid en ce a nd i ts p ro pe r ch ai n of c ust ody w as a dm itt ed

by the trial court w ithou t objec tion. (RR3 - 111 - 133)

2. Vict im Testim ony Pe ggy Ro ot w as the vic tim

in thi s c as e an d te sti fi ed

a ga ins t Appe llant. Ms . Root testified that as she walked towar d her vehicle upon leaving work, she wa s approached from

behind b y

som eone. Ms. Root believed it to b e a c o-worker play ing a trick on her onlyto discov er that it w as a stranger. Ms. R oot testified that the str an ge m anhe ld a kni fe to he r an d sa id, “ G et in the c ar , bit ch , or

I ’ ll kil l y ou. ” Ms . Ro ot r ea liz ed

that this w as ar ea l si tuatio n and r ep lie d, “ O kay , I ’ ll do w ha te ve r y ou w an t, j ust

don ’ t hurt

m e. ” (RR3 - 52, 53) Ms . Ro ot t es tif

ie d th at she w as in ac tua l f

ear of he r lif e at thi s po int

a nd t old Appe llant, “ I have m one y on the f loo r an d y ou c anhave the c ar a nd y ou c anhave everything . My

phon e is in there. You can have e verything , j ust leave m e alone,4

j ust le t m e go. ” T his ple a by

Ms . Ro ot f

ai le d and s he te sti fi ed

that Appe llant continu ed to force her

into th e vehicle. Ms. R oot cont inued and s tated that Appe llant s ai d, “ Fi nd those f uc kin g ke y s, bit ch . F ind

tho se f uc kin g ke y s. I ’ m

not kid din g. I ’ m

not kid din g, I w ill kil l y ou, if y ou d on’ t f

ind tho se ke y s. ” (RR3 - 53, 54) Ne xt Ms. Root testified that, a s Appellant wa s forcing her into her vehicle, she not ic ed

akni fe in his le ft

hand a s he gr ab be d th e ste er ing w he el . ( RR 3 - 55, lines 5-16 ) Ms. Root described grabbing th e knife: State: May

be if y ou sho w the j ury

how y ou grabbed th e knife. Ms . Ro ot: O h, okay . Y eah, I gr ab be d it li ke thi s. St at e: W ithboth hands? Ms . Ro ot: Y es , but

pr im ar ily w ithm y r igh t hand. S t a t e : Ok a y. Ms. R oot: And -- State: You grabbed the blade? Ms. R oot: Ye s, sir. St at e: O kay . A nd the n w ha t ha ppe ne d? Ms . Ro ot: T he n w ha t ha ppe ne d w as a t the sam e tim e I gr ab be d th e -- not atth e sa m e ti m e, bu t I g rab be d t he bl ad e in m y ha nd an d we we re struggling for it. A nd I opened the passeng er’ s side doo r,5 and that's about th e tim e w hen we both tum bled out of the car . (RR3 - 57) Ms . Ro ot t es tif

ie d th at a ft er the y tum ble d out of

the ve hic le , she lande d on her stom ach w ith Appellant straddlin g her back. Ms. R oot stated th at she then was lay ing upo n th e ope n kn if e bla de a nd w as able to ge t the kni fe f old ed up. ( RR 3 - 58) A ft er sus ta ini ng m

ult ipl e blo w s to the he ad

f ro m Appe llant’ s f

ist s, Ms . Ro ot state d Appe llant h it he r w ithhe r ow n bo ots f ro m ins ide he r ve hic le . ( RR 3 - 61) Ms . Ro ot the n te sti fi ed

that Appe llant r eg ai ne d c ontro l of the kni fe a nd tri ed

to ope n th e bla de but

it ha d j am m ed shu t. ( RR 3 - 62) Appe llant a ga in atte m

pte d to ge t M s. Ro ot i nsi de the ve hic le but she m ad e he rs el f go l im

p in to d ea d- w ei ght . Appe llant c oul d no t ge t M s. Ro ot’ s le gs i nto the ve hic le a nd d ec ide d to f

le e the sc en e by

ste al ing he r ve hic le . ( RR 3 - 62, 63) Ms . Root testified that sh e had a cut on her r ight p inkyfinger fr om grabbing th e knife as de pi ct edin Sta te ’s exh ib it 19 , a ph ot og rap h t ak en at t he ho sp it al . On cr oss exam ination , Ms. Root testified that she gained con trol of the knife after tum bling out of the vehicle with Appellant, laid upo n the knife, and closed the bla de . ( RR 3 75 - 77) Appe llant the n sm as he d he r he ad int o th e ve hic le br eakin g he r nose and the n f le d th e sc en e in the ve hic le . ( RR 3 - 78, 79) T he defense concluded its cross exam ination by asking Ms. Root about the disparities6

be tw ee n he r de sc ri pti on o f the e ve nt tha t e ve nin g and h er de sc ri pti on the fo llo w ing day . ( RR 3 79 - 84) B. De fense Evidenc e T he de fe nse ope ne d by

arg uin g th at

Appe llant w oul d te ll his sid e of the story about robb ing th e victim and show that the knife was not “part of the story ”. (RR3 - 135) Appellant testified in his own defe nse, that he w as with a w ork crew doi ng c onstru ct ionw ork inCo rp us C hr ist i, T ex as . Appe llant a dm itt ed to usi ng drugs and alcoho l before a pproaching Ms. R oot in the parking lot to ask for a ci garr ette . ( RR 3 - 138 ) Appe llant s ta te d th at he “ start le d” Ms . Ro ot and s he gr ab be d hi s sw eate r an d bi t hi s f ing er . ( RR 3 - 141 ) Appe llant t es tif ie d th at he de fe nde d hi m se lf

, tr y ing to pushhe r fa ce a w ay f ro m him w he n he w as bitte n. Appe llant tri ed

to ge t aw ay

f ro m Ms . Ro ot b ut c oul d no t be ca use she ha d hi s fi nge r an d te sti fi ed

a s su ch : Appellant: W ell, I wa s beggin g, like, “ Please le t go. Plea se let go.” B ut as

soon as I f

elt her going harder and deeper, I starte d hittin g her to let go , to see if s he wou ldlet go . AndI di d h it he r, y es , si r, I did . De fense: Howhard did y ou hit her? Appe llant: I m ean, I ' m

ac onstru ct ionw orke r, I hit he r pr etty

hard . De fense: Okay . H ow m any tim es did y ou hit her?7

Appellant: At that tim e, I believe like four or five tim es at that tim e. D ef en se : O kay . A nd d o y ou r ec al l w he re y ou h it he r at ? Appellant: In her f

ace. It w as in her fa ce. D ef en se : O kay . A nd whic h hand w er e y ou h itt ing he r w ith , y our r igh t or y our le ft ? Appellant: My

left, because she had m

y right -- m

y right finger in her m outh, and I w as hittin g he r w ithm y le ft . ( RR 3 - 142 ) Appellant wa s able to rem ove his fing er a fter e noug h pun ches and described a sit ua tio n of am utu al f igh t be tw ee n hi m se lf

a nd M s. Ro ot. Appe llant s ta te d he wa s bleeding and scraped up, and when Ms. R oot started hitt ing hi m with her boot , he de fe nde d hi m se lf by bit ing he r on h er

sho uld er . ( RR 3 - 143 ) T he de fe nse the n e nte re d it s e xhi bit s 1 thoug h 10 of pho tog ra phs of Appe llant’ s hand whe re it w as bitte n. ( RR 3 14 4 - 150 ) Ap p el l an tco n cl u d ed h i s d i re ct t es t i m o n y b y ad m i t t i n g h e s t o l e M s . R o o t ’s ve hic le onc e he got

his hand f

re e an d th at

he a cc ide ntl y

dr ove of f int o th e shi p ch an ne l be ca

use he ha d no c lue w he re he w as a nd w as on dru gs. ( RR 3 - 151 ) Appellant adm itted to hi s prior trips to T. D. C.J. and hittin g Ms. Root in the face , but that a t no ti m e dur ing the e ve nt d id h e ha ve akni fe . ( RR 3 - 152 , 153 ) T he S ta te f

oc use d it s c ro ss e xa m inatio n onthe Appe llant’ s a dm iss ionof8

hittin g M s. Ro ot. Appe llant t es tif ie d th at he did hit he r num er ous tim es but

that he di d n ot sl am

he r he adin to th e v eh ic le an d d idno t u se a bo ot as a weap on . He agreed that Ms. Root was not “ m aking it all up ”, adm itted to hi tting her, but that she c er ta inl y e xa gge rate d he r sto ry . ( RR 3 - 156 , 161 ) Appe llant t es tif ie d th at he onlyasked Ms. R oot for a cigarr ete and did not h old a knife to her and tell her “ get in the car bitch.” (RR3 - 156, 157) Th e S t at e i n qu i re do n wh et h erth e ju ry s h o u l db el i ev e a co n v i ct ed fe l o n ’s sid e of the sto ry ove r Ms . Ro ots ’ . Appe llant a ga in t es tif ie d th at he did a ssa ult Ms . Ro ot b ut tha t the re w as ne ve r a w ea pon inv olv ed . ( RR 3 - 163 , 175 ) C. Closing Ar gum ents T he S ta te m ad e a br ie f ope nin g arg um en t tha t i t w as up t o th e j ur y to de te rm ine w he the r a kni fe w as use d or not . ( RR 3 - 181 ) T he de fe nse a dm itt ed to the r obbe ry

up f ro nt and a ske d th e j ur

y to “ fo llo wthe lawand s earc h f or re as ona ble doubt a s to one sin gle iss ue . ” (RR3 - 182 ) The def ense showed that no kni fe w as ever r ecovered and that the m edical ev ide nc e w as not

c onsi ste nt w ithMs . Ro ot’ s in j ur ie s. ( RR 3 - 182 ) T he de fe nse tol d th e j ur

y that M s. Ro ot w as not

ali ar but a rg ue d th at

she w as e xa gge rate d part s of he r sto ry a s sh ow n inhe r inc onsi stanc ie s indif fe re nt p oli ce r ep orts. ( RR 3 - 183 , 186)9

T he de fe nse c los ed

by a ski ng the j ur

y to onl y f ind Appe llant g uil ty

of s i mp l e r o b b e ry:

“ y ou c an ’ t l et

y our dis ta ste f or w ho M r. V as que z is, w ha t he ’ s do ne , his pa st, the se a ct ion s, c onvi ct him of som ethin g w hic h he did

not do. Wha t he did w as he r obbe d P eg gy

Ro ot. What he did

not do i s a ggr av at ed ly

( sic ) ro b Pe ggy Ro ot. ” ( RR 3 - 187 ) The S tate closed by

arguing that Ms. Root is sim ply m ore cr edible than Appe llant and tha t Appe llant i s ac onvi ct ed f el on who kne ww ha t he w as doi ng who has an incentive to lie. ( RR3 187 - 189) The State argued that the m edical evidence of Ms. Root’ s hands was consistent with defe ndin g against a knife which w as pr oof that a kni fe w as use d. ( RR 3 - 190 ) T he S ta te c los ed by a rg uin g th at

no kni fe w as r ec ove re d be ca use Appe llant g ot r id o f the kni fe a nd a ske d th e j ur y to fi nd h im gui lty of a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry . ( RR 3 - 192 ) D. Judgem ent and Se nten ce Af ter the j ury

found Appellant gu ilty

of aggravated robbery

(RR3 - 193, CR 123) , the tr ia l c ourt he ar d f ro m both M s. Ro ot and Appe llant. Ms . Ro ot a ske d th e tr ia l c ourt t o “put

him aw ay f or alon g ti m e, f

or li fe if pos sib le ” (RR4 - 7, 8) Appe llant s ta te d th at

he w an ts h el p f

or his dr ug a ddi ct iona nd t es tif

ie d th at he gr ewup i n ave ry

r oughpart

of S anA nto nio , T ex as , w he re he be gan sh oot ing up he ro in at thirte en( 13) y ears old . ( RR4 - 9, 10) Appe llant c hr oni cl ed both hi s10

crim inal and extensiv e drug abuse histo ry . ( RR4 10 - 16) T he de fe nse a ske d th e tr ia l c ourt i m pose atw en ty

( 20) y ear puni shm en t on Appe llant f

or thi s “ 3( g) ” of

fe nse w hic h w oul d e nsur e a co nsi de ra ble se nte nc e so that Appe llant c oul d f

ull y w ork th e T . D . C. J. r eh ab ili ta tio n pr ogr am s. ( RR4 - 20) T he S ta te c al le d Appe llant a “ soc iop ath” a nd arg ue d th at the f ac ts o f thi s c as e sugg es t tha t this “ co uld

have be enac ap ita l m

ur de r. ” (RR4 - 21, 22) T he S ta te closed by asking th e trial c ourt im

pose a life sentence. (RR4 - 23, 24) The tr ial court found the Appellant gui lty of first degre e aggravated r obbery an d a sse sse d ase nte nc e of tw en ty f ive ( 25) y ears in the I nst itu tio na l D ivi sio n of the T ex as D ep ar

tm en t of Cr im ina l Ju sti ce . ( RR4 - 28, CR 123 ) It is fr om thi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e App el la nt ap pe al s.11 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT Appe llant c onc ed es ( as he did a t tri al ) to the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ionf

or the le sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse of r obbe ry . Appe llant t e s t i f i e dtr u t h f u l l y ab o u tth e r o b b e ry a n da d mi t t e dt o h e i n o u s a c t s up o n th e v i c t i m. Appellant also testified truthfullythat he did no t do tho se acts using a knife. L ack of c er ta in p hy sic al e vid en ce sup ports A ppe llant’ s te sti m ony

that he did

not e xhi bit orus e a kni fe i n t hi s ro bb ery. Appe llant i s a ski ng this Co urt t o r ef orm his c onvi ct ionto the lesser-included offense of r obbery . S ee Co lli er v . Sta te , 999 S . W . 2d 7 79 ( T ex . Crim . App. 1999).443 U.S. 307 (1979) 3 12 AP PL ICA BLE L AW & STA ND AR D O F REVIE W T ex as P en al Co de § 29 . 02 - Ro bbe ry : ( a) Ape rs on c om m its a n of

fe nse if , in the c our se of

c om m itt ing the ft

a s de fi ne d inCh ap te r 31 and w ithint en t t o ob ta in or m ai nta in c ontro l of

the pr ope rty , he : ( 1) int en tio na lly , kno w ing ly , or r ec kle ssl y ca use s bo dil y

inj ur y to an oth er ; or

( 2) int en tio na lly

or kno w ing ly

thr eate ns o r pla ce s anothe r in f

ea r of im m ine nt b odi ly

inj ur y or de ath. Te xas Penal Code §29.03 - A ggravated Robbery : (a) A per son comm its an offense if he com

m its robbery

as defined in Section 29.02, and he: (1) causes se ri ous bodi ly

inj ur y to an oth er ; ( 2) use s or

e xhi bit s ade ad ly

w ea pon; The Ja ck son v. V irg ini a legal-sufficiency standard is the onl y

standard that 3 a re vie w ing c ourt sh oul d a ppl y in de te rm ini ng whe the r the e vid en ce is suf fi ci en t to s uppo rt

e ac h e le m en t of

ac ri m ina l of

fe nse that the S ta te is re qui re d to pr ove be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. B rook s v . Sta te , 323 S . W . 3d 8 93 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 2010 ) Whe n r ev ie w ing suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e vie wa ll of the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t t o de te rm ine w he the r the j ur y w as r at ion al ly jus ti fie d i n fi nd in g g ui lt be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. B rook s at 898 -9 00 ( plura lity opi nio n) . W e de fe r to the f ac t f ind er ’ s r es olu tio n of

c onf lic tin g e vid en ce unl es s th e resolution is not rational. See Ja ck son at 319 , Clay ton v . Sta te , 235 S . W . 3d 7 7213

(T ex . Cr im . App. 2007 ). O ur duty a s ar ev ie w ing c ourt i s to e nsur e that the evidence presented actually suppo rts a conclusion th at the defendant com m itted th e cri m e. W

ill iam s v . Sta te , 235 S. W .3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim . App.2007 ). A def endant need not file a m otion for direc ted verdict or a m otion for new tr ia l t o pr es er

ve an a ppe llate c la im

c onc er nin g th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to pr ove his gui lt. H e ne ed

not obj ec t t o th e adm iss ionof e vid en ce in the tr ia l c ourt t o preserve this issue. H e need not claim , in the trial c ourt, that the m ethod bywhich th e St at e p ro ve d a n e le m en t o f th e o ffen se was d efi ci en t o r de fect iv e. In sh or t, a cl ai m r eg ar din g su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid en ce ne ed

not be pr es er ve d f or appe llate rev ie w at t he tri al lev el , and itis no t fo rfei te d b y th e fai lu re t o d o s o. M

off vSta te (Apr il 7, 200 4, CC A N o. 134 3- 03)14 ARGUMENT IS SU E RE ST A T E D : Whe the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o pr ove Appe llant u s e dakn i f

e i n th e c o mm i s s i o n o f

ar o b b e ry? Although §29.03 proscribes a finding of aggravation where a w eapon was not us ed but a “ serious bod ily injury ” re sulted, the j ury charge f ailed to instruct as such. T he j ury

charge lim ited any

finding o f aggravation solely to the use of a knife: “ The off

ense is aggravated robbery if the person com

m itting the robbery use s or e xhi bit s ade ad ly

w ea pon. ” (C R 1 14) T hus the j ur y c anonl y have f ound the robbery

to have been aggravated based upon the presence and use of a knife du rin g c omm is si on of t he rob be ry . Appe llant c onc ed es the le ga l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid en ce to supp ort hi s co nvi ct ionf

or the le sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse of r obbe ry , he is as kin g th is C ourt t o consider reform ing hi s convictio n to the lesser-included offense of robbery . S ee Co lli er v . Sta te , 999 S. W .2d 779 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999). Appellant argues that Ms. R oot’s testim ony alone is not eno ugh evid ence up o n wh i ch t o s up p o rt a v er d i ct fo r a g g ra v at ed ro b b ery. Wh i l e M s . R o o t ’s te sti m ony w as that Appe llant b randi she d akni fe upo n hi s a ppr oa chbe fo re the str uggl e en sue d, it

doe s no t su

ppl y the e vid en ce that Appe llant a ct ua lly ha d or us eda kn ife in th e ro bb ery.“an obje ct that has a n obvious purpose apa

rt from c ausingdeath or

serious bodily

injury 4 cannot be a dea dly

wea pon” 15 Ms. R oot was inconsist ent in her description of her assailant to pol ice. A lth oughthat c anbe und er standa ble a ft er suc h aunn er

vin g e ve nt, it

goe s to the iss ue of he r m em or

y . W as Ms . Ro ot’ s m em or y on the de ta ils of

the pe rs on who atta ck ed he r cl oude d onthi s is sue of akni fe too ? T his c an not be a nsw er ed , onl y th e ev id en ce ca n b e rev ie wed . Ther e w as no testim ony

about the sharpness of the folding kn ife that appellant carrie d, the ac tual knife was not in evidence, and no testim ony wa s presented by

the victim

or police that the folding knife had the ability to inflict de at h o r se rio us in

jury. Whe n ape rs on i s c harg ed w ithusi ng a

de ad ly w ea pon, the e vid en ce m

ust es tabl is h t ha t t he weap on was a ctua ll y de ad ly. Lo ck

et t v . Sta te , 874 S . W . 2d 8 10, 814 (Tex. App.- Da llas 1994 , pet. ref 'd). Under the offense of a ggravated robbery w ithw hic h a

ppe llant w as c harg ed , ape rs on c om m its a n of

fe nse if he c om m its a ro bbe ry and “use s or

e xhi bit s ade ad ly

w ea pon dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

the robbery .” (CR 6, 114). Afolding k nife is not a deadly we apon bydesign. See M cC ain v . Sta te , 22 S . W . 3d 4 97, 502 -0 3 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 200 0) 416

Even w ithou t expert testim ony or a descr iptio n of the we apon, the injurie s suf fe re d by the vic tim

c anby the m se lve s be asuf

fi ci en t ba sis f

or inf er ri ng tha t a de ad ly w eap on was u se d. Tu ck er v . Sta te , 274 S. W .3d 688 (2008 ); A lso See M oral es v . Sta te , 633 S . W . 2d 8 66, 868 -6 9 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 198 2) ( phot ogr ap h of deep slash from

j ust un derneath the victim ’ s earlobe ac ross her cheek to the corner of her m outh , c losed by

sutures, w as sufficient to show that a deadly we apon was us ed ). Conversely , those sam e inj uries can be shown to exhibit a lack of injury fr om akni fe . Ms . Ro ot t es tif

ie d th at she a ct ua lly gr ab be d th e kni fe by

it s bl ad e with her r ight h and (RR3 - 57) and then fell onto the knife while its blade w as ope n. ( RR 3 - 58) Bu t l at er Ms . Ro ot t es tif

ie d th at she did not have a ny se ri ous injuries f rom the alleged knife: St at e: N ow , y ou s ai d y ou g ra bbe d th e kni fe . I ’ m

goi ng t o sh owy ou St at e’ s E xhi bit s 8 and 9 ; do y ou h av e w ound s to y our hands be ca use of that? Ms. R oot: Ye s, sir. St at e: I thi nk y ou s ai d y ou g ra bbe d it w ithy our

r igh t hand? Ms. R oot: Ye s, sir. St at e: T hose are w ound s to y our r igh t hand? Ms . Ro ot: I ha ve sc ratc h - - not asc ratc h, but

ac ut o n m

y pin ky be ca use17 th at 's wh ere - - be cau se of h ow I g rab be d i t. St at e: I thi nk y ou s ai d y ou g ra bbe d it pr ed om inantl y

w ithone hand? Ms. R oot: Ye s, sir.

Ms. R oot’s testim ony

regar ding her hand injuries and pictu res of the inj uries the m se lve s is inc onsi ste nt w iththe vio le nt s tr uggl e she de sc ri be d. T he re w er e fo ur pic tur es take n of

Mr . Ro ot’ s hands af

te r the a tta ck . T he f

ir st p ic tur e (RR5 - 21) show s w ha t a

ppe ar s to be tw o sc ratc he s or sm al l c uts to the pa lm . T he se co nd picture (RR 5 - 23) shows what a ppears to be a sm all cut to the left pinkyfinger. T he thi rd pic tur e (RR5 - 25) sho w s w ha t a ppe al s to be sm al l a

br as ion s to the knuc kle s. T he f

our th p ic tur e (RR5 - 27) sho w s w ha t a ppe ar s to be asc ratc h to the ba ckof t he ha nd . T he se inj ur ie s c oul d e as ily c om e fr om

Ms . Ro ot’ s stru ggl e w ithAppe llant w hil e on the gr av el and c onc re te park ing lot . F igh tin g ov er akni fe bla de , a ct

ua lly handl ing the bla de it se lf

, w hil e in this ba ck -and- fo rth ph y sic al e xc hange w ith Appe llant s houl d have pr oduc ed m or e se ri ous inj ur ie s th anw ha t i s se enin the phot ogr ap hs. F urthe r, the re w er e no i nj ur ie s to Ms . Ro ot’ s st om ac h or abdom ento su pp or t h er cl ai m

th atsh e fel l o nt o a kn ife bl ad e. Appe llant t es tif

ie d th at he did not have akni fe w he n he c om m itt ed thi s18

ro bbe ry and arg ue s onappe al that the phy sic al e vid en ce doe s no t su ppor t M s. Ro ot ’s tes ti m on y

on th e al le ge d k ni fe’s ex is te nc e.

CON CLU SION L ac k of c er ta in p hy sic al e vid en ce sup ports A ppe llant’ s te sti m ony

that he did not exhi bit or use a knife in this rob bery . Appellant is ask ing th is Court to reform his conv iction to the lesser-included offense of r obbery . S ee Co lli er v . Sta te , 999 S. W .2d 779 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999). PR AY ER WH ER EF O R E, P R EM I S ES C O N S I D ER ED , Ap p e l l a n tr e s p e c t f u l l y p r a ys thi s H onor ab le Co urt r ev er se Appe llant’ s c onvi ct ionf or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry a nd refor m the conviction to a robbery , r em and the case to the trial court for rese nte nc ing , and t o gr an t any oth er suc h r el ie f to whic h Appe llant m ay be e nti tle d. Re spe ct fu lly

sub m itt ed , /s/ Travis Berry Tr avis Berry T ex as Bar N o. 240 5919 4 P. O . Bo x 63 33 Co rp us C hr ist i, T ex as 784 66 T : ( 361) 673 -5 611; F : ( 361) 442 -2 562 tr av isb er ry law @gm ai l. co m ATTORNEY FOR APPELLA NT19 CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE T his is to c er

tif y that onthi s Apr il 6, 201 5, atr ue a nd c or

re ct c opy of the Appellant’ s Brief

has been sent via e-m ail to Mark Skurka, attorney for the S tate, at the N ue ce s C ounty

D istri ct A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e, 901 L eo pard

- Rm . 206 , Co rp us Ch ris ti , Texa s 7 84 01 . /s/ Travis Berry Tr avis Berry20 CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE Purs uant t o R

ule 9. 4( i) (3 ) of

the T ex as Ru le s of

Appe llate P ro ce dur e, the unde rs ign ed

c er tif ie s th is b ri ef

c om pli es w iththe ty

pe -v olu m e lim itatio ns announ ced in Rule 9.4(i) (2)(B ) of the T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1. T he und er sig ne d c er tif ie s th at the I nit ia l B ri ef

c ont ai ns n o m or e than 3, 658 words in proportion ately spaced ty

peface , an am ount of words w ithin the lim its set forth in Rule 9.4(i)(2)( B) 2. T he br ie f ha s be enpr ep ar ed in pr opor tio na te ly spa ce d ty

pe fa ce usi ng W or dP er fe ct

12 i n 14 pt. T im es N ewRo m an . F ootnot es have be enuse d and ar e al l a cc ount ed

f or in the above w or d c ount . 3. T he und er sig ne d a cknow le dge s am at er ia l m isr ep re se ntatio n in c om ple tin g this certificate, or circ umvention of the ty pe-volum e lim its states in Rule 9.4(i)( 2)(B) of the T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure, m ay result in the Court striking the brief. /s/ Travis Berry Tr avis Berry