No. 01-15-00483-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

At Houston



No. 1439664

In the 182nd District Court

Of Harris County, Texas



WILLIE MCDOWELL

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF



DEVON ANDERSON

District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

DAN MCCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

mccrory_daniel@dao.hctx.net

ANDREA HANDLEY

AMANDA PETROFF

Assistant District Attorneys

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

Tel.: 713/274-5826

FAX No.: 713/755-5809

Counsel for Appellee

ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED

ACCEPTED

01-15-00483-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/3/2015 3:35:52 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/3/2015 3:35:52 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
i

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 39.7, the State waives oral argument.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT..................................................i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.........................................................................1

REPLY TO POINT OF ERROR ONE.......................................................................2

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................7

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .........................................................................7
iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Anderson v. State, 

416 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)................................................................3

Bradley v. State, 

359 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d)............ 3, 4, 5

Brooks v. State, 

323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)................................................................3

Callahan v. State, 

502 S.W.2d 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)....................................................................5

Clayton v. State, 

235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)................................................................4

Gear v. State, 

340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)................................................................2

Griego v. State, 

337 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)................................................................3

Harmon v. State, 

167 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).....................3

Herrero v. State, 

124 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).........................4

Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. 307 (1979)...............................................................................................2

Laster v. State, 

275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)................................................................3

Madden v. State, 

799 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)................................................................2
iv

Sharp v. State, 

707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)................................................................4

RULES

TEX. R. APP. P. 39.7 .................................................................................................... i
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated 

robbery. (CR 8). After the jury found appellant guilty of the charged offense, the 

trial judge assessed punishment at 35-years confinement. (CR 237).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The complainant, Itashia Corbin, was at home with her one-year-old 

daughter when she answered a knock at her front door. (RR III 19-22, 51). Once 

she opened the door, appellant and another man “bum rushed” into her home. (RR 

III 22-24). Both men were carrying guns. (RR III 23). Appellant held the 

complainant at gunpoint while his partner went “through the house” and gathered 

items such as an Xbox, shoes, and cash. (RR III 25-26). After “they grabbed what 

they could,” appellant and his accomplice left with the loot. (RR III 26-27). The 

complainant chased appellant, prompting him to fire his gun in the air. (RR III 27).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Since the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a 

conviction and the complainant’s testimony establishes each element of the 

charged offense, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction. 

Furthermore, any inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony do not undermine 
2

the sufficiency of the evidence because the jury is presumed to have resolved any 

inconsistencies in favor of the verdict.

REPLY TO POINT OF ERROR ONE

In his sole point of error, appellant contends the trial judge erred by denying 

his motion for an instructed verdict. (RR III 202). Appellant argues he was entitled 

to an instructed verdict because the evidence is insufficient to support his 

conviction for aggravated robbery. Regarding his insufficiency claim, appellant 

maintains the complainant was not credible due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

A challenge to a trial judge’s ruling on a motion for an instructed for verdict 

is actually a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. 

Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). In determining 

whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court must 

consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine 

whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational 

factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Gear v. State, 

340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This standard gives full play to the 

responsibility of the factfinder to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the 

evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. 

Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). When the record 
3

supports conflicting inferences, the reviewing court presumes the jury resolved the 

conflicts in favor of the State and defers to that determination. Anderson v. State, 

416 S.W.3d 884, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). This standard applies equally to 

circumstantial and direct evidence. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517-18 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2009).

1

The complainant testified that appellant forced his way into her home and 

held a gun on her, causing her to fear death, while appellant’s accomplice stole her 

property. (RR III 19-26). She stated she was positive that appellant is “the man 

that came into [her] home and took [her] property and held [her] at gunpoint.” (RR 

III 77). The complainant’s testimony establishes all of the elements of the offense 

as alleged in the indictment. (CR 9).

A robbery victim’s testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to support a 

conviction. Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 918 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d); Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.--

Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). Therefore, the complainant’s testimony, 

which alone proves the alleged offense, is sufficient to support appellant’s 

conviction. Id.

 

1 Appellant asks this Court to conduct a legal and factual sufficiency review, employing 

different standards for the two proposed analyses. (appellant’s brief, pp. 9-10). It is well settled, 

however, that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard that an appellate court should 

apply in determining the sufficiency of the evidence. Griego v. State, 337 S.W.3d 902, 903 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)).
4

Furthermore, the complainant’s identification of appellant as the robber was 

corroborated by Shavondia Smith, who testified that, on the day of the robbery,

appellant had custody of her Explorer, which is the vehicle in which the robber

loaded the stolen items and attempted to flee after his commission of the offense.

(RR III 30-31, 35-38, 87-92, 118-119, 127-129). Such corroboration further 

strengthens the sufficiency of the evidence.

Nevertheless, appellant argues the complainant was not credible because of 

certain inconsistencies in her testimony. This claim fails to alter the outcome of 

the sufficiency review because inconsistencies in testimony do not render the 

evidence insufficient. Herrero v. State, 124 S.W.3d 827, 833 (Tex. App.--Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Regarding inconsistent testimony, the jury was entitled 

to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their 

testimony. Id. As the sole factfinder, the jury was authorized to believe or 

disbelieve any portion of any witness’s testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 

614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). It is the jury’s duty to resolve any conflicts in the 

testimony. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Bradley, 

359 S.W.3d at 917. Any inconsistencies in the testimony should be resolved in 

favor of the jury’s verdict in a sufficiency review. Herrero, 124 S.W.3d at 833. 

Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction despite any

inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. Id.
5

Appellant also suggests the evidence is insufficient because his fingerprints 

were not found on the gun he used during the robbery or on the Explorer he

attempted to operate after the robbery. (RR III 183-186). The lack of fingerprints

on the gun is not compelling because the investigating officer testified that the 

gun’s variant texture was not conducive to holding a fingerprint. (RR III 185-187). 

Regarding the Explorer, the officer testified that it is “very rare” to discover 

fingerprints at a crime scene. (RR III 183). Therefore, the absence of fingerprints 

does not raise a reasonable doubt about appellant’s guilt. Callahan v. State, 502 

S.W.2d 3, 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (evidence sufficient to support burglary 

conviction despite lack of fingerprint evidence); Bradley, 359 S.W.3d at 917 (jury 

may find guilt without physical evidence linking the accused to the crime).

Accordingly, despite appellant’s claims, the complainant’s testimony, 

standing alone, remains sufficient to support appellant’s conviction. Point of error 

one is meritless and should be overruled.
6

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that all things are regular and the conviction 

should be affirmed.

DEVON ANDERSON

District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

/s/ Dan McCrory

DAN McCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 274-5826

TBC No. 13489950

mccrory_daniel@dao.hctx.net
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to the 

following email address via TexFile:

Hattie Sewell Shannon

Attorney at Law

Hattieshannon52@yahoo.com

 /s/ Dan McCrory

DAN McCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 274-5826

TBC No. 13489950

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 The undersigned attorney certifies that this computer-generated document 

has a word count of 995 words, based upon the representation provided by the 

word processing program that was used to create the document.

/s/ Dan McCrory

DAN McCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 274-5826 

TBC No. 13489950

Date: 11/3/2015