COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00361-CR

CORY MAURICE LONG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

I. Introduction

In two points, Appellant Cory Maurice Long appeals his conviction of four 

counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

The State charged Long with four counts of aggravated robbery with a 

deadly weapon, alleging that he intentionally or knowingly, while in the course of 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

committing theft of property and with intent to obtain or maintain control of said 

property, threatened or placed Summer Thrush, Robert Evans, Jacob Davidson, 

and Taishona Carpenter in fear of imminent bodily injury or death and used or 

exhibited a deadly weapon (a firearm).

During trial, the four complainants testified that during a party at Evans and 

Davidson’s apartment, Long and an accomplice stole property, including two 

computers, at gunpoint. Long testified that he sold Evans fake drugs and that 

Evans instructed him to hold the two computers as security for payment; Long 

then sold the computers for $500. The jury convicted Long of four counts of 

aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at forty-five years for each 

count, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. This appeal followed.

III. Sufficiency

In his first point, Long complains that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction.

A. Standard of Review

In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to 

determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the 

trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to 
3

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. 

at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638.

The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the 

evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Brown v. 

State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2075 

(2009). Thus, when performing an evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our judgment 

for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2007). Instead, we Adetermine whether the necessary inferences are 

reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence 

when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.@ Hooper v. State, 214 

S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We must presume that the factfinder 

resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that 

resolution. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 

638.

B. Evidence

No one disputes the use of alcohol and Ecstasy ―tabs‖ at the party at 

Evans and Davidson’s apartment. Evans returned to the apartment around 2:30 

a.m. on June 6, 2009, from a party where he had been drinking. Davidson, 
4

Thrush, and Carpenter, along with several others, were there; some were 

drinking and some were taking Ecstasy.

2

Around 4:00 a.m., two men who Carpenter, Thrush, Evans, and Davidson 

did not know and had never seen before showed up at the apartment—a black 

man with dreadlocks and gold teeth or a gold grill on his teeth, who was identified 

at trial as Long, and a white man with a shaved head. Davidson said that he let 

the two men into the apartment because he assumed they knew someone at the 

party.

The two men entered the apartment, went straight back to Evans’s 

bedroom with Evans, and closed the door. Evans said that the men wanted to 

buy five Ecstasy pills if Evans had any extra that he could sell to them. Evans 

was going to sell the pills for $10 each. Evans sat down at his computer; when 

he turned around, Long pointed a gun in his face.

Long told Evans, who was terrified, to give him all of his money; Evans had 

$250, and he gave it to Long but said that he would not have if Long had not had 

a gun. Long also asked for the rest of Evans’s pills, and he told his accomplice

to grab Evans’s $1,400 desktop iMac G5. The accomplice left the room with the 

computer and then came back inside and took Evans’s laptop iMac.

 

2

Thrush and Carpenter had gone to several parties together before going 

to Evans and Davidson’s apartment, and Carpenter said that she was drunk 

when they got there. Thrush took a tab but did not drink any alcohol at the 

apartment. She said that she was not ―too messed up‖ and still knew what was 

going on around her. Davidson testified that he did Ecstasy at the apartment that 

night.
5

Thrush went to Evans’s room and tried to open the door. She knocked,

and Long opened the door and ―basically, like, told [her] to get in there and, like, 

threw [her] across the room and told [her] to be quiet.‖ He was holding a gun. 

Carpenter stated,

[Thrush] went in. The door shut. I walked in after her. And as soon 

as I came in the room, I saw him and the other person that was 

there, and they had a gun, and they told me to shut the door. So 

immediately—I’ve never even seen a gun before. So I shut the door 

behind me.

Carpenter said that Long was holding the gun and that she thought she was 

going to die. Thrush said that Long started rounding up everything—money, a 

computer, and drugs––and that she was ―absolutely terrified‖ and in fear for her 

life.

Davidson said that he saw the white man walk out with Evans’s laptop and 

that was when he wondered what was going on. Then Long came out with a gun 

in his hand and told everyone to go into the room. Davidson said that he was 

scared when he saw the gun and that he thought he was in imminent danger of 

bodily injury or death. He, Carpenter, and the other party guests went into the 

room as instructed. Long told them to sit down, be quiet, take out their wallets, 

and take off their pants and throw them to him so he could check everything 

while the accomplice went through the apartment.

Long left the bedroom and used his cell phone to call someone ―to bring 

the car around.‖ When Long left the bedroom, Thrush tried to shut the door. 

Long came back in, shoved her to the ground, and told all of them not to do 
6

anything stupid like that again. The robbers took an X-box 360, which belonged 

to Davidson, from the living room. They also took Evans’s Wii game console, the 

cable box for the television, and anything else they could carry. Davidson said 

that if the men had not had a gun, they would not have let them take these items 

or Evans’s laptop and computer.

After the robbery, one of the party guests chased after the men in his 

underwear, trying to get a license plate. Thrush, Carpenter, Davidson, and 

Evans stayed around to wait for the police and gave written statements. The 

police arrived around 5 a.m.

Evans punched two holes in his bedroom wall because he was very angry. 

He and Davidson talked about blaming the damage to the wall on the robbers 

because Davidson did not want to pay for it, but Evans said that he did not 

attribute the damage to the robbers in his written statement. Davidson 

acknowledged that he lied when he told the police that the robbers had punched 

two holes in the bedroom wall and that Evans had actually punched the holes 

because he was upset about the robbery. He told the police the robbers did it 

because he thought that if that was in the police report, he and Evans would not 

have to pay for it. Not long after the robbery, he and Evans terminated their 

lease and had to pay a penalty.

Evans said that he was ―sobering down‖ during the robbery but that he was 

still intoxicated and that the only reason he gave the men his computer was 

because ―they had a gun in [his] face.‖ During cross-examination, Thrush 
7

admitted that she had ―a real bad memory sometimes‖ and again admitted that 

she had been drinking that night and taking Ecstasy. Carpenter said she was 

sober by the end of the night and completely sober ―[b]y the time there was a gun 

in [her] face.‖

Evans testified that he subsequently received an e-mail from a computer 

store, asking him whether he was missing any computers. Evans replied to the 

store’s email and went to the police with the store’s information.

North Richland Hills Police Detective Enriqueta Garcia stated that she and 

Detective J.D. Smith, now retired, recovered Evans’s two computers from 

Richland Computers. Robert Calvey, the store owner, and Justin Canada, a 

store employee, gave statements to her and provided documentation to her 

regarding the sale of the computers, including a copy of a cancelled check and a 

copy of the driver’s license of the individual selling the computers—the driver’s 

license belonged to Long.

The trial court admitted State’s Exhibits 11 and 12. State’s Exhibit 11 is 

the stipulation of Canada’s testimony, which includes that on June 6, 2009, three 

men came into Calvey’s store to sell a MacBook and an iMac desktop, and a 

white male, Ian Davis, claimed ownership and began filling out the paperwork. 

Davis did not have a driver’s license, so Long produced his driver’s license, from 

which a copy was made.

State’s Exhibit 12 is the stipulation of Calvey’s testimony: On June 6, three 

men came into his store to sell a MacBook and an iMac desktop computer for 
8

$500. Ian Davis began filling out the sales form but could not produce valid 

identification, so Long gave his driver’s license to Calvey. Calvey issued a check 

to Long for $500, which Long later cashed. Calvey later found Evans’s contact 

information on the computer and e-mailed Evans. Evans contacted him about 

the property, and the computers were released to Detective Smith. Calvey 

provided copies of a check, Long’s driver’s license, and the sales forms to the 

police.

Detective Garcia assembled a photo lineup using the photo from Long’s 

driver’s license, and she showed the photo lineup to Thrush, Carpenter, 

Davidson, and Evans on June 16. Thrush, Carpenter, Davidson, and Evans all 

selected Long’s photo from the array. Davidson said he was 100% positive 

about his identification. Evans said that he instantly recognized Long’s face after 

spending thirty to forty-five minutes in the bedroom with Long on the night of the 

robbery. On June 16, Canada picked Long out of Detective Garcia’s photo 

lineup. On June 17, Calvey viewed the same photo lineup and identified Long. 

The trial court admitted all of the photo lineups.

Detective Garcia said that as a result of her investigation, she secured an 

arrest warrant. She also testified that a handgun is a deadly weapon. On crossexamination, Detective Garcia agreed that if Evans had given the computers to 

Long, the computers would not be considered stolen.

Long testified that he had been convicted in Louisiana of the felony offense 

of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in September 2001 and of 
9

aggravated battery in May 2005.3 In June 2009, he was employed driving Little 

Debbie trucks and sold Ecstasy pills on the side. On June 6, K-Love, a white 

―dude,‖ told him that somebody wanted to buy pills from him, and he and K-Love 

went to the apartment to sell fifty pills for $500. Long explained the events of the 

evening, stating:

The only person I ever talked to was the dude or the guy that 

said we went to his room. I never talked to him on the phone. It was 

understood that he was supposed to buy 50 pills, because the 

person that called me was a mutual friend of him [sic]. So that—I 

never really talked to him.

So that’s why when we come there, first we were outside, but 

he’s like, Come inside. That’s when he was supposed to be getting 

the money for it. When we get up in there, he say he don’t have the 

money right now. So I’m like, Did you make me come way from 

Dallas from this bull crap? That’s what I said. He like, Hold on, then 

he asked me would I hold a computer until then. He offered me a 

laptop first. I’m like, That ain’t enough to cover these pills.

So he like—he got this whole computer that his momma just 

got for him. Just hold it for lagniappe until he give me the money in 

the morning. But honestly, the pills I had was fake anyway, so I’m 

looking at him like, I’m winning.

Long said that although Evans gave him the computers to hold, he sold them 

anyway. Long also said that he did not have a gun, did not point a weapon at 

anybody, did not tell anyone to take off his or her pants, did not hit anybody in the 

 

3During cross-examination, Long elaborated that he had been convicted of 

―possession with intent, two aggravated batteries, disarming a police officer.‖ He 

said that the police officer said that Long took his gun but that he was not guilty 

and that he ended up with a broken nose and injuries to his rib; the officer 

sustained a broken hand. In 2001, he was convicted of attempted possession of 

a dangerous weapon (gun) while in possession of cocaine. In 2003, he was 

convicted of attempted possession of cocaine.
10

head, did not throw a girl down, and did not rob anyone. Later that day, he and 

Ian Davis sold the computers for $500 at Richland Computers. Long cashed the 

$500 check.

During cross-examination, Long testified that he had never met Evans, 

Davidson, Thrush, or Carpenter before that night and that the apartment had 

been full of people. He said that they must have accused him of robbery 

because they discovered that the pills were fake. K-Love helped him carry out 

the stuff from the apartment. Long said that the State’s witnesses lied about him 

having a gun and stealing anything. He said that Evans’s friends were being 

loyal by testifying about the purported robbery.

C. Analysis

Long argues that the evidence is insufficient because ―the alleged eye 

witnesses were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance which 

would impair their ability to make a proper identification of the perpetrators.‖ 

However, a witness’s intoxication bears on his or her credibility, which is a matter 

reserved for the jury. See Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997); see also Gilmore v. State, 822 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

1992, no pet.) (―Johnson’s state of intoxication on the date of the robbery 

certainly goes to the weight to be given to his testimony.‖). Further, Long 

admitted that he was present at the apartment that evening and that he left with 

Evans’s computers, and he admitted to a history involving crime and violence. In 

light of the evidence set out above, we conclude that the jury could have found 
11

beyond a reasonable doubt that Long intentionally or knowingly, while in the 

course of committing theft of property, threatened or placed Thrush, Evans, 

Davidson, and Carpenter in fear of imminent bodily injury or death while using or 

exhibiting a deadly weapon. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; 

Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02–.03 (West 

2011) (defining the elements of robbery and aggravated robbery). We overrule 

Long’s first point.

IV. Hearsay

In his second point, Long complains that the trial court erred by overruling 

his hearsay objection during Davidson’s testimony.

During Davidson’s testimony, the following occurred:

Q. Who did you get the Ecstasy from?

A. [Evans] got it from one of his friends, and we were just getting it 

for the party.

[Defense counsel]: Objection to hearsay.

THE COURT: The question was: Who did you get it from?

[Prosecutor]: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The actual—I got it from [Evans].

Q. . . . Okay. So you got it from [Evans]. He’s the one that had it?

A. Yes, sir.
12

No objection followed the second time the State asked who had the Ecstasy or 

had given it to Evans or Davidson’s affirmative response that he obtained the 

Ecstasy from Evans.

To preserve error, a party must continue to object each time the 

objectionable evidence is offered. Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2003); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2003) (citing Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); 

Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 

1026 (1999). A trial court’s erroneous admission of evidence will not require 

reversal when other such evidence was received without objection, either before 

or after the complained-of ruling. Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2004); Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

This rule applies whether the other evidence was introduced by the defendant or 

the State. Leday, 983 S.W.2d at 718. Because the same evidence was admitted 

without objection immediately after Long’s first objection, Long has failed to 

preserve error. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Geuder, 115 S.W.3d at 13. Therefore, 

we overrule his second point.
13

V. Conclusion

Having overruled both of Long’s points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 5, 2012