COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
CARY ANTHON Y MAUL DI N, Appellant,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00028- CR

Appea l from the 195th J udicial District Court of Da llas County , Texas (TC# F- 0774060-N)

O P I N I O N Cary Anthony Mauldin appea ls his conviction of ag g ravated robbe ry with a dea dly
wea pon. At trial, Appellant pled not guilty to the indictment and invoked his rig ht to trial by jury . The jury

found him guilty

in late 2008 and a ssessed a punishment of inc arc era tion for 17 y ear s. The trial c ourt enter ed a judg ment of convic tion by jury and sente nced A

ppellant
acc ording ly . Appellant then f iled a motion for new

trial, which wa s overr

uled. On appe al, he challeng es the trial c ourt’s judg ment on the basis that the evide nce is fa ctually insufficient to show he c ommitt ed an of fense
. In November

2007, J avar

J ones wa s driving his 1997 Toyota Camry to a frie nd’s house when he stopped at a c onvenienc e store. When he pulled up to the store, he sa w two par ked ca rs with tinted windows. As Mr. J ones g ot out of his car, he hear d a ca r door slam a

nd footsteps behind him. Then, a bla ck man r an up to Mr. Jones and demande d money . The robbe r wa s holding a g ray automatic gun, which wa s partially pulled out of his left pocke t. The man told Mr. J ones to “drop out” or “f all out,” but Mr. J ones did not understand. Mr . J ones showed theman that his wallet wa s empty , but then dug into his pocket and g ave the man a f ew dollar s. Mr. J ones also g ave his c hain nec klace and cr edit car d to the man, but he hesitate d when the ma n asked him for

his car ke y s. The man e ventually took Mr. J ones’s c ar ke y s, but he had trouble g etting into the c ar be cause the driver ’s side door wa s broken, a nd so he dema

nded Mr. Jones to g o over a nd help him open the door. Mr . J ones re fused to comply . After the man ente red the car throug h the passeng er’ s side door and dr ove off , the two other ve hicles at the store followed behind. In his sole issue, Appellant ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed in enter ing his a g g rava ted robbe ry conviction bec ause the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to sustain it. Howeve r, since Appellant’s br ief wa s filed, the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls has ruled that the only standard applicable to determine whether the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support each e lement of a criminal offe nse is the Jack

son v. Virginia leg al suffic iency standard. See B rooks v. State , No. PD-0210- 09, 2010 WL 3894613, at *14 (Te x .Crim.App. Oct. 6, 2010). The ref ore, in the inter ests of justice, and in lig ht of the Brooks decision, we will construe I ssue One a s a cha lleng e to the leg al sufficie ncy

of the e vidence
. See id . at *5. A leg al suffic iency

revie w re quires the a

ppellate c ourt to determine whether , “conside ringall of the e vidence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict wa s a jury rationally justified in finding guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.” See B rooks v. State , 2010 WL 3894613, at *5, citing Jack

son v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.C t. 2781, 2789, 61 L .Ed.2d 560 (1979). When conductingsuch a r eview, this Court is require d to defe r to the jury ’s role a s the sole judg e of witness cr edibility , and the we ight their testimony

is to be aff

orded. Brooks , 2010 WL 3894613, at *5. The fir st of his mult ivariate contentions is that there w as conf licting testimony

at trial -2-about how he c ame to be dr iving the vic tim’s car so that the State f ailed to establish his identity as the robbe r. Appe llant then criticizes the identification of Appellant as the pe rpetrator as flawe d beca

use the Appe llant was not appre hended until day s after the robbe ry . Appellant argues that eve n though Mr . J ones identified Appe llant in a photo lineup, there w ere discrepa ncies in Mr. Jones’s and anothe r witness’s de scriptions of the suspec t, and Appellant’ s actua l phy sical cha

rac teristics. He ne x t points t o the fa ct that no fing erpr ints were obta ined from the re cover ed vehic le, and no we apon wa s ever discovere d, must cast doubt on Mr. J ones’s “identification and cre dibilit y .” And he finally argues the re cord c lear ly shows that Mr. J ones’s
cre dibilit y

was “ not pristine” bec ause Mr . J ones initially lied about what he had bee n doing on the day of the off ense. A per son commits robbery if, in the course of committing thef t and with the intent to obtain or maintain control of proper ty , he intentionally

or knowing ly

threatens or plac es anothe r in fea r of imminent bodily

injury or death. T E X .P E N A L C O D E AN N . § 29.02(a) (3)( Ver non 2003). A per son commits aggravated robbe ry if he c ommits robber

y and uses or

exhibi ts a dea dly
wea pon. Id . at § 29.03(a )(2) . Under the Penal Code, a

deadly wea pon is any

thing that in the
manner of its use or intended use is capa ble of c ausingdeath or

serious bodily

injury
. T E X .P E N A L C O D E A N N . § 1.07(a) (17)( B) (Ve rnon Supp. 2010). At trial, Mr. Jones identified Appellant as the ma n who appr oache d him in front of the convenie nce store on November 28, 2007, and dema

nded money

from him while displaying a g un. Mr. J ones testified that a lthough the inc ident occur red a t night, the lig hting in fr ont of the store whe re the incident occ urre d was “ perf ect.” Mr. J ones also testified that the suspe ct was about two or thre e fe et awa y from him, and the suspec t’s gun made Mr. Jones fee l “sca red f or [hi s] l ife.” After

the suspect e ntere d Mr. J ones’s c ar a nd drove of

f, Mr. Jones went into the store -3-and aske d the cler k to call the police to r eport the inc ident. He c ontacted D etec tive Randle the next day to provide a state ment of the incide nt. Mr. J ones subseque ntly identified Appe llant in a photo lineup, and at trial, he aff irmed that the pe rson he identifie d in the lineup was sitting in the courtroom. Mr. J ones admitted that he lied a bout what he ha d been doingon the day of the off ense. At first, he told the State that he w ent to the conve nience store for a soda a fter attending sc hool, but he later

reve aled that he did not go to school that da y ; instead, he wa s just hangingout with friends. H oweve r, he te stified that he wa s truthful about the ac tual incident in front of the convenie nce store . Senior Corporal Patric ia Rey es of the D allas Police De partment identified A ppellant as the driver of the blue Toyota Camry that was re ported stolen the nig ht of the incident. When she stopped the ca

r on Nove mber 30, 2007, for speeding , she re called only seeing one per son in the
car , and he g ot out of the ca r through the passeng er side door . As soon as he w as out, he ra n off, and that wa s when she he ard a n audio aler

t from the patr ol car

that the vehicle was stolen. Fe licia Reed Pedr aza, a police office r and patrol office r in Dallas, testified that she assisted Offic er Reyes in the sea

rch f or the fle eingdriver, a

nd that she and O ffice r Rey es both hea rd a descr iption of the suspect over the ra dio: he was we aringa white shirt, khaki pa nts, and he wa s a black male
. Even thoug h testimonies by the witnesses at trial conflicted, w e re g ard the jury ’s ver dict
as conc lusive beca

use the jury

is the sole judge of the witnesse s’ cr edibility and the we ight attributed to their testimony
. See B rooks , 2010 WL 3894613, at *5. In this case, the jur y found
cre dibilit y

in the testimonies presented by the State, and be lieved Mr. Jones’s testimony that Appellant wa s the robber . As such, Appe llant does not succe ed in his contentions that there -4-wer e contr adictory testimonies reg ardinghow he c ame to drive the vehicle in question, and that Mr. J ones’s c redibility

was “ not pristine.” Considering all the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, we conc lude the jury was rationally

justified in finding Appe llant’s g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. See B rooks , 2010 WL 3894613, at *5. Acc ording ly , Appellant’s leg al suffic iency argument fails, and we
overr ule I ssue One. H avingoverr uled Appellant’ s sole issue prese nted for r eview, w e af firm the trial court’ s judgme nt.

November

10, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
. (Do Not Publish)

-5-