### NUM BER 13-03- 0041 1-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 D I N B U R G
LE VIYAS J A M A IL CL A YT ON, A pp ellan t,

v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 83rd D istrict Co urt of H arris C ou nty , T exas . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REMA ND B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M em o ra n d u m Op in io n o n re ma n d b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Lev iy as Jamai l Cl ayton, w as conv ic ted of murde r and s entenc ed to thi rty y ears’ impri sonment

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.02( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. On or ig ina l subm ission, w e foun d tha t the ev iden ce ad duce d at trial w as legally insuf f icient to sustain Cl ayton’ s c onvicti on. See Clay ton v . St ate , 169 S.W .3d 2 54 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2 0 0 5) , r e v ’d , 2 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 2 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 7 )

. Th e Te x a s C o u rt o f C ri minal Appeal s rev ersed, hol din g thatthe ev iden ce m e t t he s tandard for leg al suffici ency
. See Cl ayton v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 7 72, 7 82 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. W e now c o n sid e r on
re mand w hether

the ev ide nce w as factual ly s u f f ic ien t t o prov e tha t C layton c ommitt ed2

murde r. Beca use w e find that the ev ide nce w as factual ly su ff ic ien t, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. I. B A CKGRO UND W hil e dr iv ing near

the entrance of Hous ton’ s B ro ck Park i n the ear ly

after noon of June 1 4, 200 1, Housto n Anim al Control em ployee Angela Davis observ ed a pickup truck lose con trol in f ront of

h er a nd o v erturn int o a ditch . Dav is and he r partne r stoppe d the ir
v ehicles a nd p rov ided assistan ce. Abo ut te n to tw ent y min ute s af ter the y stop ped , Dav is noti ced someth ing mov ing i nsi de th e par k; upon further i nv est ig ati on, s he di sc ov er ed a man, James Pla y onero, cov er ed in blood and appare ntl y suff er ing f ro m sev er al g unsho t
w oun ds. Playonero a ttem pte d to com mu nicate , butDav is could no t und erstan d his mumbli ng
. Al thoug h D av is ca ll ed th e pol ic e for ass is tanc e, P lay onero di ed befor e any medic al atten ti on c oul d be re ndered. Dav is tes ti fied at t ri al that, from t he ti me she st opped to as si st the d ri v er

of the t ru ck

that v eer ed off the road t o the ti me she w ent t o i nv est ig ate th e m o vem ent i n the par k, she did not see or hear any othe r peopl e or

v ehi cl es enter

or exit the park. Dav is furth er

tes ti fied th at s he found Pl ayon e ro l y ing on t he g ro und nea r a w hit e 1 9 9 5 T o yo t a Ava lo n , wh ic h h a d it s t ru n k a n d re a r d o o r o p e n ; t h e ve h ic le a p p e a re d t o h a ve
ro ll ed up ag ain st a tree. A trai l of blo od l eadi ng from t he c ar i ndi cat ed th at P lay onero had
craw led out of the rear

pas seng er

co mpart ment of the Av alo n and col lap sed w her e he w as found. Upo n further inv est ig ati on of t he Av alo n, po li ce dis cov er ed th at t he g earshi ft w as in neutral and t he ig nit ion w as in the acc ess or y posit ion

. The pol ic e also found a ti re i ro n on th e frontse at, w hic h theysu spec ted h ad been w edg ed ag ain st the a cc ele ra tor so that the c ar w oul d propel i tse lf i nto t he trees, and a w ad of cha rred pape r lod g ed i n the fuel t ank fill er nec k, ind ic ati ng thatso meone had tr ied to dest ro y the car by i g nit ing the tank

. The
v ehi cl e’s bac k s eat a nd rear floor board w er e s oaked w it h bl ood, and a moder ate a mount of blood w as foun d on the vehicle’s exterior.Ser geant Sm i t h t est i f i ed a s f ol l ows r egar di ng Pl ay oner o’ s gun shot wounds: 1 T he f act t hat he was shot i n bot h l egs, t wi ce i n bo t h l egs, once i n t he f or ear m , once t hr ough and t hr ough i n t he f l esh a nd t he st om ach, shot i n t he p eni s, shot i n t he m i ddl e of t he b ack oft he n eck, t hey wer e t ort uri ng hi m or t r y i ng t o ge t i nf or m at i on o r get t i ng i nf or m at i on f r om s o m e th in g o v e r a b a d d r u g d e a l. Ay al a was i ni t i al l y i nv est i gat ed f or t he m ur der , but was ul t i m at el y cl ear ed of s us pi c i on af t er he 2 i nf or m ed a pol i ce off i cer t hat he had l oaned t he car t o P l ay oner o on t he m or ni ng o fJune 14 and was at hom e a l o n e w h e n P l a y o n e ro w a s s h o t. 3 Rog er M il ton, M. D. , an ass is tant medic al ex aminer w it h the Harr is County M edi cal Ex aminer ’s Office, tes ti fied attr ial thatPl ay onero w as shotei g ht t imes at cl ose ra ng e and die d w it hin fiv e to ten mi nutes after su ff er ing the w ounds

. Mi lt on als o tes ti fied that itw as imp ossi b le for Playonero to have liv ed for tw ent y to thirty min ute s af

ter receivi ng those gunsho t w oun ds. Sergean t Boyd Smith of the Hou ston Police Depa rtme nt, w ho w as one o f the f irst pol ic e off ic ers to ar ri v e at the sc ene, tes ti fied that he sus pect ed that Pl ay onero’s murder
w as the re su lt of a dr ug deal g one bad

. He based thi s o pin ion on t he fact that both Pl ay onero and Ang el Ay ala , the ow ner of the v ehi cl e, w er e Col ombian , and bec ause of the nat ure of Playonero’s w oun ds. 1 Al P a d i l l a , a n i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h t h e H o u s t o n P o l i c e D e p a rt me n t , t e s t i fi e d t hat h e ide nti fied fing er pr int s o n the Av alon b e long ing to Pl ay onero, C layton, and Ay ala

. The 2 fing er pr int s b elo ng ing to Cl ayton w er e found on the Av alo n’s ste er ing w heel and g earshi ft,
as w ell as on th e cen ter conso le bet w een the c a r’ s f ro n t s eat s. Clayton ’s prints w ere
cause d by his tou ching t he stee ring w hee l, gea rshif t, and ce nte r con sole w ith Playonero ’s bloo d on his hand s. Off ic er Je sus Sos a of the Hou sto n Pol ic e D epar tment w as ass ig ned t o i nv est ig ate Playonero’s de ath . Of f icer Sosa te stif ied th at his investigation prod uced no evidence di r ec tl y l i nk i ng C l ayto n to P l ay on ero ot he r t ha n th e bl oo dy fi ng er pr i nt s fou nd a t th e c r i me
sc ene. N o ey ew it ness es w er e identi fied, and no murde r w eapon w as found. H ow ev er , a
w ar ra nt w as is sued for C layton’ s a rrestei g ht da y s a fter C layton w as ide nti fied th ro ug h the bloo dy f ingerprints.4

Sosa tes ti fied th at he and his par tner att empted to loca te Cl ayton for a w eek after the w arrant was issued. Sosa testif ied t h a t h e a dvised Clayton ’s g rand mo the r, mot her, g ir lfri end, and father ’s g ir lfri end abo ut t he out sta ndi ng w ar ra nt. Cl ayton w as not a rrest ed unt i l h e w a s s t o p p e d fo r a t r a ffi c v i o l a t i o n i n M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , s o me e i g h t mo n t hs after the inciden t at Brock Pa rk. Cl ayton, tes ti fyi ng i n hi s d efense, s tated thathe d ro v e to Brock Par k o n the mor nin g of June 1 4 i n order to meet an ac q uai ntanc e, Ti ff any W oods. C layton t est ified that , as he approache d the entranc e to the park , he obser v ed a blu e car ex itthe par k at a hig h rate of speed. H e tes ti fied th at, upon en ter ing the par k, he l ooked for W oods but did not fin d her ; he did , how ev er , find the w hit e Av alo n w it h Play onero’s left hand ha ng ing outs ide the
re ar pas seng er

co mpart ment of the v ehi cl e. Cl ayton t hen des cr ibe d w hat h e di d next: Q. [Defense coun sel] W hen y ou got up to th e v ehicle, w hatelse, if anythi ng , di d y ou not ic e at the v ehi cl e? A. [C layton] That the re w as a man i n the bac ks eat. Q. A man l ay ing i n the bac ks eat? A. Yes, sir

. Q. W hat d id y ou not ic e aboutthe man? A. T hathe w as f ull of blood , sir. Q. W hen y ou noti ced thi s man in the b ack seatfull of blo od, w hat d id y ou do? A. I reache d ou t and touch ed h im, sir. Q. W ha t di d – w hy

d i d y ou t ou c h hi m? A. Beca use he w as mumbli ng , and I coul dn’ t und erst and w hat h e w as sa ying. Q. After y ou reache d and touc hed the man, di d y ou do anythi ng el se as far as the car

i s c oncer ned? A. Yes, sir

.5

Q. W hat d id y ou do? A. I ran around t he dr iv er ’s si de of the door

. I g ot i n the c a r a nd I tr ied to pu t the car in reverse, b u t t he grav el aroun d the car w as – w here the g ro und w as w et an d the mud w as, the car w oul dn’ t mov e. Cl ayton t est ified thathe t hen s aw a pi ck up tr uck , t ra v eli ng at a hi g h rate o f speed,
v eer off the ro ad and ov ertur n i n a near by ditc h. Cl ayton test ified that he pani ck ed atthat poi nt, g ot ou t of the Av alo n, retur ned t o hi s c ar , and le ft th e p a rk, pass ing the Ani mal Con trol off ic ers’ v ehi cl es as he depa rt ed. Cl ayto n t h en retur ned t o the hous e tha t he share d w ith his grand mo the r. On cross-ex am inatio n, Clayton adm itted thathe did n ot call the p oli ce or

tel l any one el se about w hat he had seen. H e tes ti fied th at he di d notkn ow abo ut th e w arrant u ntil his arrest on a traf f ic v iolation eight mon ths late r. Af ter trial, a jury

convicted Clayton of

murd er and sente nced him to thirty y e a rs’ imp risonm ent . Clayton app eale d his conviction, an d this Court foun d tha t the ev iden ce
w as leg all y

insuffici ent to suppor

t the jur y ’s ve rd ic t, rel y ing pri mari ly on Solom on v

. St ate , 49 S. W .3d 3 56, 3 61 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) (mere presenc e i s n ot en oug h to prov e g uil t) and Me din a v

. St ate , 7 S.W .3d 633, 637 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1999) ( faili ng to noti fy author it ies of a cr ime is not enoug h to prov e g uil t)

. S e e Cla y ton , 1 6 9 S.W .3d a t 258

. The cour t of criminal ap pea ls reversed, not ing th at the a mo unto f b lood foun d on Clayton ’s fin gerprints,
a l o n g w i t h D a v i s ’ s t e s t i mo n y t h a tn o o t h e r

v e h i c l e s l e ftt h e p a r k , C l a yt o n ’ s s u d d e n fl ig ht from the cr ime sc ene, and hi s fai lure to tur n hi msel f in t o pol ic e on the arrestw ar ra nt,
cons ti tuted l eg all y

su ff ic ien t c ircum st a n ti al ev ide nce to s uppor t a findi ng of g uil t. See Cl ayton , 235 S.W .3d at 780 . W e no w conside r w het her the ev ide n c e wa s factu ally suffici ent t o s ust ain the jur y ’s g uil ty v erdic t. II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. St and ard o f Rev iew W h e n re vie win g t h e fa c t u a l su f f ic ie n c y o f t h e e vid e n c e t o s u p p o rta co n vic t io n , we
v iew all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, fav or ing nei ther par ty

. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d6

404, 414 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) ; Dr ichas v. State , 175 S.W .3d 7 95, 7 99 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. W e the n as k ( 1) w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the c onv ic ti on i s s o w eak that the fact- finder ’s dete rmi nati on i s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or (2) w hether

co nflic ti ng evidence so great ly out w eighs the evidence suppo rting the conviction tha t the fact-f inde r's deter minat ion is manifest ly unj ust

. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5, 41 7; Johns on v . St ate , 23 S. W .3d 1, 11 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 0). T o rev erse under the secon d ground, w e mu st deter mine, w it h s ome obj ect iv e b a sis i n the re cord, t hat t he g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of all the ev ide nce con tr a d ict s t he v erdic t. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417

. A factua l suffici ency

rev ie w re q uires the rev iew ing co urt t o c onsi der al l of the ev ide nce. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 618 , 625 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). In de ter mini ng w hether

the ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t a conv ic ti on, it is not eno ugh tha t this Court “harbo r a subjective lev el of reason able dou bt to ov erturn [the ] conviction.” Id . W e cann ot conclude tha t a con v iction is clearly w rong or man ifestly
u n ju s tsi m p ly b e c a u s e we wo u ld h a ve d e c id e d d if fe re n t ly t h a n t h e ju ry o r b e c a u s e we dis ag re e w it h the jury 's resol uti on of a confli ct in the e v ide nce. Id

. W e may su bst it ute o ur jud g ment for that of the j ur y on c re dib il ity

and w eig ht q uest ion s, “a lbe it onl y to a v er y l imi ted degree. ” Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625

. W e w il l re v erse a v erdic t of g uil ty on a factual suffici ency

ch all eng e onl y w hen w e can say , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, t hat the g re at w eig ht and pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the j ur y ’s v erdic t. Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 417 . W e mu st gi v e du e de feren ce to th e fa c t -f in d e r’s determ inatio ns, par ti cul ar ly thos e det er minat ion s c oncer nin g t h e w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce. Johns on , 23 S.W .3d a t 9. To suppo rta c onv ic ti on for murde r, the Stat e had to prov e tha t C layton ( 1) int enti onal ly

or know ing ly

caused Pl ay onero’s death by sh ooti ng hi m w it h a firear m or ( 2) int ended t o cause ser iou s bodil y inju ry and commi tted an act cl ear ly dang erous to hu man li fe t hat caus ed Pl ay onero’s death by sh ooti ng hi m w it h a firear m. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 19.02( b) ; Sander s v . St ate , 119 S.W .3d 8 18, 8 20 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

.W e n o te th a t t h e o n ly e v id e n c e t e n d in g t o e s ta b lis h a m o tiv e f o r C la yto n to m u r d e r P la yo n e r o w a s 3 Ser geant Boy d’ s t est i m ony t hat he bel i ev ed Pl ay on ero ’ s d ea t h was t he r esul t of a dr ug d eal gon e ba d. H o w e v e r, a l th o u g h m o ti v e is a s i g n i fic a n t c i rc u m s ta n c e i n d i c a ti n g g u i l t, G u e v a ra v . S ta te , 152 S. W

. 3d 4 5, 50 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 4) , i t i s not an el em ent of m ur der and nee d not be pr ov ed t o sup por t a m ur der conv i ct i on. L e rm a v . S ta te , 632 S

. W

. 2d 8 93, 895 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 198 2, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng G a rc ia v . S ta te , 495 S

. W

. 2d 25 7 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 73 ))

. 7 B. A nal ysis The ev ide nce at t ri al est abl is hed the foll ow ing ci rc umstan ces w it hout dis pute: Cl ayton w as pr esent

i nsi de th e Av alo n shortl y after Play onero w as shot ; C layton fle d the
sc ene w hen he saw

a pi ck up tr uck

ov ertur n i n hi s v ici n it y; Cl ayton d id not i nform the author it ies aboutw hat h e had seen; and the w ar ra nt for his ar re st w as outs tandi ng for e ig ht months before Cl ayton w as detai ned. C layton’ s e x pla nati on for his presenc e i n the Av alo n
w as tha t he w as tr

y ing to sav e Pl ay onero’s l ife by pul li ng hi s v ehi cl e outof the mud, but Cl ay ton c o u l d n o te x p l a i n t o t h e j u r y w h y i tw a s n e c e s s a r

y fo r h i m t o c o mm a ndeer Playonero’s vehicle in order to acco mp lish that

. Furthe r, Clayton could not explain w hy it
w as nece ssaryt o tou ch Playonero’s han d, nor could h e explain how to uchin g Playonero’s
re lat iv ely cl ean han d resul ted in the ac cumul ati on of bl ood on Cl ayton’ s h ands suffici ent t o t ra n s fe r b lo o d y f in ge rp ri n t s t o t h e s t e e ri n g wh e e l, ge a rs h ift , a n d c e n t e r co n s o le

. Fi n a ll y, Cl ayton c oul d notex pla in w hy , i f he wa s a ttempt ing to sav e Pl ay onero’s l ife, he fail ed to tak e the extra l ife- sav ing st ep of noti fyi ng the pol ic e of Play onero’s condit ion after he had fled th e s cene. 3 In a pro secut ion ba sed o n circumst ant ial ev iden ce, it is not ne cessary that every fact poin t di r ec tl y

a nd i nd ep en de nt l y

t o th e g ui l t of t he a c c us ed ; r at he r , th e c um ul at i v e effe ct of al l the i ncr imi nati ng facts may be s uff ic ien t t o w ar ra nt a conc lus ion of g uil t. See Hooper
v. State , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ; Guev ar a v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 4 5, 49 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 4 ). He re , we ig h in g Cl a yt o n ’s d u b io u s s t o ry ag a i n s t t h e c u m u la t ive force of the incrimin ating circumsta ntial evidence , and g iv ing due de feren ce to th e jury ’s deter minat ion s a s t o the w eig ht of the ev ide nce and t he credi bil ity of w it ness es, w e c annot say that the ev ide nce off er ed at tr ial , as a w hol e, cl ear ly rev eal ed th at t he c onv ic ti on w as ina ppropr iat e. See Johnso n , 23 S.W .3d a t 8, 9.8

Af ter consid ering all of

the evidence add uced at trial , we conclud e tha t the jury ’s
v erdict is not so co ntrary to the w eight of the evidence as to be clearly w rong or man ifestly unj ust

. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15, 417

. A ccordingly , w e f ind th at th ere w as factu ally suffici ent e v ide nce to s uppor t t he v erdic t. III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX .R .A PP .P. 47.2( b) Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 5t h day

of June, 2008.