In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00374-CR 

DIREECE WYNNE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014-404,394, Honorable John J. McClendon, III, Presiding 

 

July 5, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

“She could steal, but she could not rob.”

1

 Though that is not the exact argument 

made here, it is quite close. Direece Wynne (appellant) appeals his robbery conviction 

by attacking the sufficiency of the evidence underlying it. He posits that he only 

assaulted but did not rob. We affirm.

One commits robbery when “in the course of committing theft as defined in 

Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property” he either 

 

1

“She Came in Through the Bathroom Window” by Lennon-McCartney.
2

“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another” or “intentionally 

or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.” 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011).2 Appellant was charged with and 

convicted of the former.3 And, whether that conviction has sufficient evidentiary support 

depends on whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

verdict is enough to permit any rational trier of fact to find “the offense’s elements 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Finley v. State, 484 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2016).

Appellant does not deny that he assaulted his victim, that is, he intentionally, 

knowingly, or recklessly caused Larry Flores bodily injury. Rather, he contends that he 

did so outside the course of committing theft. According to the evidence of record,

though, he was driving around out “hustling” to acquire a room for the night when he 

came upon Flores and his girlfriend walking to their apartment around 3 a.m. Appellant

and his passenger stopped them and asked for directions. Flores complied. Once the 

conversation ended, Flores was tased. Furthermore, both appellant and his passenger 

exited the vehicle and together kicked and punched their victim. While this happened, 

Flores recalled one of his assailants uttering the command “check his pockets” and 

thereafter feeling hands do just that. 

When the attack ended, Flores’ cell phone and his girlfriend’s car keys were 

gone. The cell phone was later found in appellant’s vehicle, once the police had 

arrested him. His arrest occurred after he engaged in a car chase with the police, 

 

2 One commits theft “if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of 

property.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2015).

3

The trial court’s instructions to the jury on guilt included a party charge.
3

eventually abandoned the Explorer, and ran to and unsuccessfully tried to hide in a 

field.

While it may be that the “dancer” to whom Mr. Lennon and Mr. McCartney 

referred in their song could not rob, the evidence at bar was more than ample to permit 

a rational factfinder to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant could and did 

rob. Viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict, it was enough to permit the 

jurors to rationally infer that he assaulted Flores during the course of committing theft

with the intent to obtain control over property. Consequently, the verdict has the 

support of legally sufficient evidence.

We overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice 

Do not publish.