Opinion filed June 30 , 201 6



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 5

- 00137

- CR

__________ DELANE EUGENE BRANCH , Appellant

V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR42481

O P I N I O N The jury convicted Delane Eu gene Branch of aggravated promotion of prostitution. The trial court assessed punishment a t confinement for five years and
sentenced him accordingly

. On appeal, Appellant assert s in one issue that the State
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had
committed the offense of aggravated promotion of prostitution

. We affirm.2 I. T he Charged Offense The grand jury indicted Appellant for aggravated promotion of prostitution
and alleged that Appellant knowingly or intentionally supervised or manag ed two prostitutes in a prostitution enterprise. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 43.04 ( West Supp. 2015 ). A ppellant pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
II. The Evidence at Trial As part of a police “ sting ” operation
, Trent Sellers, a detective with the Midland Police Department
, contacted two women who had advertised services on backpage.com. 1 Detective Sellers arranged for two women to meet him at a motel
in Midland to exchange money for sex

. Appellant drove t he women to the motel in
his dark

- col ored Cadillac. Appellant and both of the women got out of the car and “met briefly” before the women went in to the motel room that Detective Sellers had provided for them

. Detective Sellers identified the two women in the motel room as the same women that he had contacted

. He identified them by their voices an d the ir
cell phone numbers that he had called

. Police arrested both women at the motel and charged them wit h prostitution. Both women possessed condoms and business cards, and one had a container of lubricating jelly. Appellant was also arrested , and he and the two women were placed in to a police car

. Law enforcement completed an inventory of Appellant’s

car and found boxes of condoms inside the car

. After Appellant and the two women were placed in to a police car, they talked
to each other

. Recording equipment in the police ca r reco r ded their conversations. Appellant first told the women: “ D on’ t say nothing

. I’m fit’in to get a lawyer

. . . . I
fit

. . . we fit’in to get the f

-- k out,” and “it [this crime] ain’t nothin’ but a

1 The State introduced into evidence State’s Exhibit No. 3, parts 1 and 2, which consisted of two separate recordings of phone calls from Detective Sellers to the two women . T he State played the two recordings for the jury

. The separate conversations with both prostitutes included an agreement to come to a motel in Midland
, an agreed

- upon charge of “ $350 for an hour, ” and an agreement that they did not “ do

a

-- l. ”3

misdemeanor.” After they discussed what had happened inside the motel room, Appellant again instructed them : “ D on’t say s

-- t .” Minutes later
, Appellant in

structed them on what his plan was going to be : “I ’m going to get y’all out first

. . . . A nd then y ou gonna have to go get the car

. ” “Then you gonna have to go tell A ngi e

. . . go tell A ngi e where I’m at, and she come get me out.” At the end of the recording, Appellant cautioned one of the women: “ D on’t trip,” when she became noticeably
animated during her explanatio n for going to the motel room

. At trial, Dete ctive Sellers and Detective Robby Mobley, another detective with the Midland Police Department who was involved in the operation, discussed
the role of a male escorting a female prostitute . Detective Mobley explained to the jury that female prostitutes want to have a male escort to protect the m from a
customer’s abuse or theft . Detective Sellers also explained that male escorts provide d protection and took a cut of the money.
III. Standard of Review
The standar d of review for sufficiency of the evidence is whether any rational
trier of fact could have found A ppellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 318 (1979); Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893 , 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We

must review all of the evidence in the light mo st favorable to the verdict and decide
whether a ny rational trier of fact could have found , beyond a reasonable doubt, each
element of the offense

. Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319.
The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses

. Sharp v. State , 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Polk v. State , 337 S.W.3d 286, 288

– 89 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2010 , pet

. ref’d). Any conflicting
inferences that a r e raised by the evidence are presumed to have been resolved in
favor of the verdict

. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318; Brooks , 323 S.W.3d at 894;4

Fuentes v. State , 991 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Turro v. State , 867 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)).
IV. Analysis
The grand jury alleged that Appellan t , as a part of a prostitution enterprise, knowingly supervised and managed two prostitutes, Rachel Guillory and Deneshia Amie, who knowingly engaged in sexual conduct for a fee. See P ENAL § 43.04(a)

. The jury charge defined “prostitution enterprise” as “a plan or design for a venture

or undertaking in which two or more persons offer to, agree to, or engage in sexual
conduct in r eturn for a fee payable to them.” A person commits aggravated promotion of prostitution if he knowingly owns, invests in, finances, controls, supervises, or manages a prostitution enterprise that uses two or more prostitutes.
P ENAL § 43.04(a)

. Appellant does not specifically challenge the State’s proof that the women were engaged in prostitution

. However, the State presented evidence that t he women
went to the specific motel room that was reflected in a text message to them from
Detective Sellers. Detective Sellers identified them as the women that he had arranged to pay money to in return for sex

. The State introduced into evidence and played the recordings of the phone calls that Detective Sellers made to the women. The women, while on the phone, said that they would provide “ out calls, ” that it
would cost “ $350 for an hour, ” and that they did not “ do a

-- l.” The de tectives found
condoms and lubricating jelly in the women’s possession

. Th e evidence wa s sufficient for a rational juror to conclude that the two women were prostitutes. See
Henson v. State , No. 05

- 97

- 01894

- CR , 2000 WL 1123509, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 9, 2000, pet

. ref’ d) ( not designated for publication).
A ppellant contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “supervised and managed a prostitution enterprise.” He argues that the presence of condoms in t he backseat of his Cadillac is a mere scintilla of evidence5

and is not enough for a rational trier of fact to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant engaged in aggravated promotion of prostitution. He claims that he was merely present at the location where the p olice arrested the two women
, and he also argues that the jury engaged in pure speculation when it found him guilty

. Detective Sellers and Detective Mobley testified that female prostitutes
, in exchange for a benefit or fee, bring male escorts as a means of protection from theft or abuse by a customer

. The dete ctives also explained how Appellant’s presence at the motel was a part of a prostitution enterprise. Appellan t drove the women, who were prostitutes, to a motel in Midland

. Appellant and the two women got out of his

car and talked befor e the women went t o the motel room that Detective Sellers had provided. Appellant waited for them in the car
, and he had boxes of condoms i n the
backseat. After the police arrested Appellant and the two women and place d them
in the police ca r , Appellant told the women not to talk . Appellant also told them that
he would hire a lawyer and get them all out of jail but that he would get the women

out first. A ppellant also noted that the crime was merely a misdemeanor and gave
the women instructions about w hat to do when they got out of jail

. After a review of the record, we hold that a rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the two women were prostitutes
, that Appellant knowingly managed or supervised the two prostitutes in a prostitution enterprise
, and that, as a result, he had committed the offense of aggravated promotion of prostitution. Therefore, under the standard of review that we have set out, we hold
that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict

. We overrule Ap pellant’s sole issue on appeal.6 V. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON
JUSTICE

June 30 , 201 6
Publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: W right , C.J.
, Willson
, J

. , and Bailey, J.