## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Wo rth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00204

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F18

- 3546

- 362

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell 

### Q UINCY 

### H ENRY 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMO RANDUM OPINION I. Introducti on A jury fou nd Appellant Quincy Henry gu il ty of onl ine solicitation of a minor and assessed his punishment at 25 years ’ incarce ration. See Tex. Pe nal Code Ann. § 33.021. The trial court s e ntenced Henry accordingly. Overruling Henry ’ s evidentiary sufficiency complaint, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment

. I I
. Hen ry ’ s Issue
In one issue, Hen ry argues, “ The jury erred when it found [him ] gu ilty of on line solicitation of a minor beca use the evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] was the person who s ent the sexual texts and Facebook
messages. ” Ac cordingly, H enry doe s not dispute that se x u al texts and Fa cebook

mess ages were sent to a minor ; rather, he disputes whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doub t that he was the person who sent the m. I II
. Th e Evidence A little after midnight on Apri l 21, 2018, twelve

- year

- old Jane ’ s phone went off. 1 Jane had left her phon e in th e bathroom , where M o ther discovered it

. Thinking th at it was odd for her daughter ’ s phone to go off after midnig ht, Mother wanted to investigate, so she picked up Jane ’ s phone and saw a F acebook alert from Henry , her

1 To pr otect the compla inant ’s identi ty , we use an alias

. See Tex. Fam. Code An n. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). W e refer to the com plainant ’s mother as M o ther for the same reason .3 co usin, whose phot ograph in the F acebook handle she recognized

. Although Mother and Henry were cousins and were Facebook frien ds , they we re not c lose. Mother

reaso ned that if something was w rong, He nry would have contacted her, not J ane. Feeling uncomfortable, Mother decided to pose as J ane . 2 On Facebook, Henry asked for Jane ’ s cell number a couple time s before Mother relented

. B ut Mother gave Henry her cell number, not Jane ’ s. From th at point for ward, Mother and Henry ’ s conversation continued over Mother ’ s cell phone. Mother tes tifie d that during their te xt ing, Henry showed that he was familiar with numerous other relati ves. For examp le, Henr y was aware of another relative named Jane and knew the first name of M o ther ’ s deceased father. And when Mother mention ed another cousin, Ca n dice , He nry r esponded that he knew Can dice was married to Truck

. 3
M o t her added that Henry p roposed that they me et a t a va cant house in a neighborhood in which she knew Henry had num er ous family members. Sim ilarly, Henry us ed , as a po in t of refere nce, a church that she knew was in that same neighborh ood.

2 Wi thout going into the detai ls, Mother had misgivings about Henry ’s fat her a nd brother.

3 Cand ice is a ps eud onym. We use a pseudonym for Candice’s husband as well. Contextually , Henry probably identified him by his nick nam e , although the rec ord is not clear.4 Mother testified that after she and H enry completed their conversation, she called the police . Later, a responding police officer took photographs of the communications betwee n her and H enry . Th e respon ding police officer, S amuel Bran d t , said that he had manipu lated up and down the screen on Mother ’ s ph one and t a k en photographs of th os e screens , which contained Mother and Henry ’ s conversation

. The photographs show that the

commu nication s wer e initially o n F acebook with “ Quincy Henry ” and then were text messages from ph one number (214) xxx

- xxxx . 4 Mother explained that b ecause she and Henry were related, they knew the same people. To verify that the 214 number use d to text her was Henry ’ s, sh e contacted

t he se other peo ple and determined that they wer e using the same 214 number to communicate with Henry

. But M o ther was not the only person to investigate the offen se. Michelle Haiduk, a crim inal inve stiga t or for the Denton County Sher iff ’ s Offic e, testified that she sent a subpoena to the phone carrier to determine who the subscriber was for the phone number used to text Mother . H aiduk also sent a subpoe na to Facebook to find out w ho was op erati n g the F acebook page used to contact Jane and t o exc hange the ini tial messages with Mother.

4 Rather than give th e act ual numb er, we refer to t his as the 214 number.5 Regard ing F acebook, Haiduk determined that tw o email addresses were associated with the account, with the fir st one belonging to someone named Ang ela
M a ssey and the second one belonging to Henry. The account h ad be en created in 2009. Haiduk al so looked for an IP ad dress attac hed to the F acebook account

. H aiduk expla ined an IP add ress as follows: [IP addresses] he lp ide ntify where the person was when they were logging into the account. IP addresses a lot of ti mes w ill tell you who the person was that was in charge o f that account or, for example, if they live in a hou sehold with

-- if they live in a house, the IP a ddress can tell you what house it goes to. It ’ s almost like the numbers on an address that ’ s on a house . It can tell you where it ’ s at. IP addresses can te ll you, most of the time, whose phone it belonged to. [ 5 ] Haiduk learned that the IP addr ess ha d been assigned to Massey during the relevant time period

. Haiduk further learned Massey ’ s home address was in McKinney

. Add itionally, through the investigation, Mother had provided Haiduk a cell phone number

— the 214 number, which was the number from which the text messages had been sent

. It wa s also the number that appeared in Brand t ’ s ph otograph s . Haidu k det ermined that Massey was t he subscrib e r . And t he home addre ss for the 214 nu mber corresponded to the home address for the Facebook IP address , t hat is, both were Massey ’ s home address

.

5 See Wenger v. State , 292 S.W.3d 191, 194 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wor th 2009, no pet .) ( “ An IP address i s a unique 32

- bit

- long code number that each computer ac qu ires au tomatically th ro u gh it s Interne t acces s pro vider for conn ecting to the Inter net. ” )

.6 Haiduk f urther di scovered that Masse y ’ s phone plan ha d t wo number s att ac hed to i t
. One was the 214 numb er, and the other wa s (469) x xx
- xxxx . 6 Later, Haiduk lear n ed th at Henry and Massey were romantically involved

. Aft e r review ing the phone records, Haiduk determined that t he text m essages sent on April 21 and 22 from the 2 14 number wer e mis sing

. Put differently, t he text messages that Brandt had phot o gra phed off Mother ’ s phone were not amon g those in the re c ord. Haidu k asserted that someone could have deleted them. Haiduk said that in c ases like this one , her exper ienc e was that individ uals regularly attempt to delete
messages . Haiduk called the 21 4 number

. Al t ho u gh no one responded, Haiduk left a voice me ssage. Someone called back; the caller ID showed the 214 number an d Massey ’ s name . The person who called back , how ever, had a male v oice and identified himself as Quincy

— H enry ’ s fi rst n a me . Haiduk ex plained that she ha d asked th is male p er son if he had any information about the cas e and informed hi m that that she wanted to talk to Massey. The person responded t hat he want ed to come in and speak to Haiduk to cle ar up the matter but asserted that he was at work an d would have to call her back to coordinate an interview

. But n either that person nor Massey ever called Haiduk back.

6 For purposes o f this opinion, we decline to prov ide t he full number.7 Haiduk recorded her conversation with th is ma n . H a iduk con ceded that she had no way of knowing whet her t he man ’ s v oice was Henry ’ s. R egardless, t he

re corded messa ge was play ed for the jury

. Later, t he jury heard Henry read two paragraphs from the court ’ s charge. F a c ebook pro du ced records of He nry ’ s F acebook acc ount from April 1, 201 8, to June 1, 201 8. Haiduk said tha t during th is two

- month per iod, t he rec ords showed that someone logged into Henry ’ s ac count about twenty

- four times from the IP add r es s corresponding with Massey ’ s house

. And during th e p eriod betwee n A pril 18 and April 23

— the period during whic h the offense occurred

— no one logged in fr om any other lo cation. The Facebook records also showed that o n April 21, 201 8, when texting someone else, Henry (or whoever was u si ng Hen ry ’ s account ) had said that h i s number was the 214 number

. The records further showed that o n April 22, 201 8, on Faceboo k f rom Massey ’ s IP addre s s, Henry (or , again, whoever was u si ng Henry ’ s account) had sent two photo s of Henry

. Haiduk conceded that Henry had not al wa ys been her ex clusive suspect. When Mother had called on May 2 3 , 2 018 , and requested a case update , Haiduk returned Mother ’ s call two days later to advi s e her that the electron ic evidence was pointing to Massey

. And the evid ence showed that Haiduk h ad no t exhausted al l the possible areas

o f investigation. For example, Ha iduk acknowledged not going to Ma s sey ’ s home to verify who lived there.8 The inqui ry eventually t urned to whether someone had hacked Henry ’ s Facebook account. Haiduk acknowledged tha t Fac ebook and othe r types of o nline media c ould be hacked. She explained that t he tell tale si gn that an account ha d be en hacked wa s that the IP address es no longer conform ed to the own er ’ s typ ical locations but, instead, suddenly c a me from other locations in t he United St at es or the world. Bu t, said Haiduk , in Henry ’ s case, all the I P addresses w ere in the location where she knew H enr y lived 7 or in locations that she knew Henry routinely frequ ent ed , so she saw no in dication that his Facebook account had be en ha ck ed.
H aiduk further noted that Henry ’ s vocabulary wa s somewhat c onsistent with the vocabulary used in the messages to Mother. F or example , when communicating with anoth er woman on Facebook, He nry said, “ What it do kinfolk. ” And when Henry communica ted o n F acebo ok wit h M other, he s aid, “ Cuz this ya kinfol k

. ”
I n He nry ’ s defense, he presented the testimony of his mother , E dith Henry

. Edith 8 said that He nry lived with her between January and Ju ly 2018. Edith maint ained that while Henry lived with her, he h ad no computer or cell phone. Rather, Henry used her cell phone.
E dith said that Henry and Massey had two ch ildren tog ether. At the time of

t rial, one child w as thirteen yea rs old and the other was twelve

.

7 Contextually, Haiduk appears to have c oncluded that Henry lived a t Mas sey ’ s house.

8 We use her first name for convenie nce and to avoid conf usio n .9 Edith desc ribed Henry ’ s relationship with Mass ey as bad. She a s serte d that
Henr y and Massey had an on

- again

- off

- ag ain relationship.
E dith maintain ed that while Henry lived with her in 2 01 8, Henry and Massey were not on good terms. A cc or ding to Edith, a nother man , James Nob les , was living with Ma sse y at Massey ’ s ho use , and Henry “ was having issues ” with N obles ’ s liv ing there because Henry did no t like how Nobles in ter acted with He nry ’ s two children. Specifica lly, Edith asserted that N obles was living with Massey in April 2018

. Edith acknow ledge d , howe ver, that F ace book messages between Massey and He nry on April 2, 201 8, showed that Massey ha d info rmed Henry that Nobles no longer lived with her. Despite that, Edith maintai ned that Ma ssey ’ s message was not necessari ly true and that , to E dith ’ s knowl edge, Nobles li ved with Mass ey after April 2, 2018. Edith denied that Henry had a F acebook accou nt. Edith acknowledged, h owever, that she and Henry had exchanged c omments on Facebook.
I V
. Standard o f Review
In our e videntiary

- sufficiency review, we view all the evid ence i n the light most favorable to the verdict to determi ne whether any rational factfinder could have found the crime’s esse ntial eleme nts beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U.S

. 307, 3 19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Queema n v. State , 5 20 S.W .3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard g ives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to resolve conflic ts in the t estimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reas on able10 infe rences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jack son , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Harrell v. State , 620 S.W .3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The factfinder alone judges the evidence’s weight and credibility. See Tex. Code Crim. Pr oc. Ann. art . 38.0 4; Martin v. State , 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 ( Tex. Crim. Ap p. 202 1). We may not re

- evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our judgment for the factfinder’s. Queem an , 520 S.W .3d at 622. Instead, we determine whether th e neces sary infere nces are reasonable based on the evidence’s cumul ative fo rce wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict

. Braughton v. State , 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); se e Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ( “The court conducting a sufficiency review must not eng age i n a ‘div ide an d conquer’ strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence.”). We must presume that the factfinder r esolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the ve rdict, an d w e must defer to that resolution. Braughton , 569 S.W. 3d at 608. V. Disc uss ion W hen viewed in the light most favorable to th e verdict , we hold that based on the evidence’s cumulative force , th e jury ’ s ne ces sary infere nces w e re reasonable

. Id. A reasonab le juror could have found beyond a rea s on ab le doubt that Henr y was the
p ers on who

— while believi ng he was communicating with twelve

- year

- old Jane

— communicated with Mo ther on Facebook and by t ext message . We summarize below the evidence supporting the j ury ’ s finding.11 T he Facebook account used to cont act Jane was Henry ’ s. No evidenc e suggested that someone h ad hacked Henry ’ s Face book account; just the opposite, the evi de nce was c onsistent with no one ’ s having h ac ked his a ccount. He nry maintains that someone might have posed as him in the same way that Mother p osed as Ja ne. The evi d en ce showed that both the F acebook account and cell phone were Henry ’ s. There was no evidence that anyone purloined Henry ’ s cell phon e. And there was no explanation why any one other than He nry would post selfies of Henry on Henry ’ s F aceboo k a c c ount. Addition ally , t he person communicating with Mother was familiar with Mother ’ s other family mem bers and with Henry ’ s extended family ’ s neigh bo r hood. A hacker or someone posing as Henry would be less likely t o have this familiarity

. Further, t hrou gh ac quaintances th at Mother and Henry had in common , Mother verified that the 214 number used to commun icate with her was H enry ’ s. In other words, Mo th e r learned that the 214 number was the one that others routinely used to phone Henry

. O ther indicia link ed bo th the Faceboo k account and the 214 number to Henry. For example, w hen Henry was communica ti ng on F ace book with another woman, he

ass erted that t he 214 number was his

. In another instance on Facebook , Henry used the word “ kinfolk, ” which also appeared in t he communicat i ons with Mother

. El sew here on Facebook , Henry eve n sent two photos of himself

. Th ese examples12 point to the reasonable conclusion th at both t he Facebook account an d the 214 number were Henry ’ s. Additional evidence s upported the conclusion that the 214 numbe r was He nry ’ s. Spec ifi cally, w hen Haiduk phoned the 214 number, the person wh o returned her call identified himself as Quinc y
— He n r y ’ s f irst name. A nd a lthough Haiduk could not vouch that the voice was Henry ’s, the jury heard both the rec o rdin g o f Haiduk ’ s conversation with Q uin cy and Henry ’ s voice when he read out loud two paragrap hs from the court ’ s charge

. Based on the verdict, the ju ry conc luded that the two voices were consistent. The jury also had to resolve why Massey ’ s name

— in addi tion to Henry ’ s
— kep t

sur f acing. For ex amp le, Henry ’ s Facebook account had t wo email addresses

co nnected to it. One was his , and the other was Massey ’ s . Si milar ly, the 21 4 number was one of two numbers on Massey ’s phone plan. Additionally , t he IP address fo r Hen ry ’ s F aceboo k account and the hom e a ddress associated with t he two phone number s on Massey ’ s plan were both linked to Massey ’ s ho use . Accordingly , the evi dence showed a consistent tie between Henry, Massey, and Massey ’ s home. The other evidence, howev er, s hed considerab le light on the con nec tion between Henry, Massey, and Massey ’ s home

. Henr y an d Massey had t wo children tog ether , and based on the c hi ldren ’ s ages at the time of trial, th ey were born a round 2009 or 2010. Coincidentally, Henry ’ s F acebook accou nt was created in 2009. Thus, a

r ati onal juror could reasonably at tribute the fact that Mas sey was linked to both13 Henry ’ s Facebook account and 21 4 number to the relationship He nry and Massey shared dat ing back to at least 2 009. Other evid ence , a lthoug h con tradicted, fur ther supported the r ea sonable inference that H enry lived with Massey in April 201 8. Over a two

- month period from April 1, 201 8, to Ju ne 1, 2 01 8 , someone had logged into Henry ’ s Fa ceboo k ac count about twenty

- four times from the IP addres s corr esponding wi th Massey ’ s house

. Tw ent y
- four log

- o ns from the same location over that time s pa n supports the inferen ce that the person doing so liv ed there

. A lthough Edith testified that Henry lived with her at all the re levant times, the jury did not have to b eli eve her

. F actfin der s may d is believe a witness ’ s tes timony in part or in its entirety ; this is true regardless of w hether other evidence co nt radicts the

w

itness ’ s testimony

. Hernandez v. State , 161 S.W.3d 491, 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
H e re, E dith was He nry ’ s mo ther, which coul d c au se a jur or to reaso nably question h er impartiality. See Evans v. State , 202 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 00 6); Hou ston v. State , No. 02

- 17

- 00025

- CR, 2018 WL 1095541, at *6 & n.4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 1, 201 8 , no pet. ) (mem. o p., not designated fo r publication) (“Disregarding or otherwise discounting the alibi testimony of Houston’s mother was well within t he jury ’s credibility prerogative.”). And , further, Edith had been caught saying something that was demo nstra b ly

not true

— E dith assert ed that He nry did not have a Facebook acco unt, but other evidence show ed that she had communicated with him on Facebook. B e cause E dith14 had communi cat ed with He nry on F acebook, she should have known Henry had a Facebook account , but she represent ed the contrary to th e j ury . That was no t the only instance that Edith gave testimony that contradicted other evidence. Edith maint ai ned that N ob les lived with Massey in April 20 1 8. But Massey herself had sent He nr y a mes sage in early Ap ril 2 018 in which s he assert ed that Nobl es no longer liv ed with her

. When confronted with Massey ’ s message to Henry, Edith effectively opine d that Mas se y was lying to Henry

. The j ur y, however, did not have to rely stric tly on Massey ’ s messa ge and Edith ’ s t estim ony to resolve whe ther Nobles was s til l living with Mass ey in A pril 201 8

. The jury also had evidence that someone had logged into He nry ’ s Faceboo k account from Massey ’ s home a round twenty

- four times in April and May 2018

. If Nob les were still living w ith M assey, this

wo uld ha ve placed Noble s a nd Henry in the same home on about two do zen occasions. A reasonable factfinder could have determined that th is dynamic w a s unlikely. Additionally, there was no testi mony that He nry logged into his Facebook

accoun t fro m Edith ’ s home during the rele van t period. In short, the jury h ad many reasons to question Edith ’ s credibility and to d isregard her testimony

. T h e jury, as the factf inder , resolve s conflicts in the testimony, weigh s the evidence, and draw s reas on able infe r ences from bas ic facts to ulti mate facts. See Harrell , 620 S.W. 3d at 914

. A s an appellate court, w e presume that the jury resolved any conflictin g inferences in the verdict ’ s favor , an d w e defer to those determinations

. See Braughton , 569 S.W.3d at 60 8. We may not re

- ev aluate the evide nce’s weight an d15 credibility

. See Queeman , 520 S.W.3d at 622. N or may we substitute our judgment for that of the ju ry . See id. We hold that a reasonab le juror could have found beyond a rea s on able doubt that Henry was the p ers on who communi cated with Mothe r on Facebook a nd by t ext message while believi ng he was communicating with twelve

- year

- old Jane

. We overrule He n r y ’ s issue. VI. Concl usion Having overruled He n r y ’ s issue, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment

. /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade B ir dwe ll J ustice Do Not Publish Tex. R . App. P. 4 7.2(b) De livered : May 2 5, 2023