No. 01-14-00335-CR No. 01-14-00336-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS CAUSE NOS. 12-DCR-061920 & 12-DCR-061921 IN THE 240 DISTRICT COURT

TH FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS DAMION GENTRY, Appellant

VS. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
STATE'S BRIEF ON DIRECT APPEAL JOHN F. HEALEY, JR. District Attorney, 268th Judicial District Fort Bend County, Texas Tyra McCollum Assistant District Attorney Gail Kikawa McConnell SBOT #11395400 Fort Bend County, Texas 301 Jackson Street, Room 101 Richmond, Texas 77406 (281) 341-4460 / (281) 238-3340 (fax) Gail.McConnell@fortbendcountytx.gov Counsel for Appellee ACCEPTED 01-14-00335-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/10/2015 6:40:30 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKi IDEN TITY OF PA RTIE S A ND CO UN SEL
Pu rs u an tt o Te x . R. Ap p . P. 38 .2 (a )( 1 )( A) , t h e S t at e s up p l emen t s Ap p el l an t ’s lis t of p a rt i e s t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s f i n a l j u d g m e n t w i t h t h e n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s e s of a ll Counsel for Appellee: Ga il Kikaw a McC onnell Assistant District A ttorney 301 Jackso n Street on Appeal Ri ch m ond, T ex as 774 69

Juve nil e Co urt Ju dge a t the Ce rt if ic at ionH eari ng: Hon. Susan Low ery CountyCourt at L awThr ee 301 Jackso n Street Fort Bend County , T exas Ri ch m ond, T ex as 774 69
T ri al Co urt Ju dge a t the Mo tio n to S uppr es s H ea ri ng: Hon. Thom as R. Culver, III 240t h District Court (R et ir ed a s of Jun e 30, 201 5) c/o 240t h District Court 301 Jackso n Street Ri ch m ond, T ex as 774 69ii TAB LE OF CO NTE NTS
I D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L
....... ....... ....... ....... . i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . ii I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... v S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... vii S T A T E M E N T O F O RA L A R G U M E N T
....... ....... ....... ....... . . vii i S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 1 A
. Fa ct s r el at ing to A ppe llant’ s id en tif ic at iona nd a

ppr eh en sio n . . . . . . 1 B. Fa ct s r el at ing to the a ggr av at ed r obbe ry of NelsonE sc obar in Rosenberg, appeal num

ber 01-14-0033 5-CR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Facts relating to the aggravated robbery of Masar io Gar za inv es tig at ed

by the Sh er if

f’ s De pa rtm en t, ap pe al num be r 01- 14- 0 0 3 3 6
- C R
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 7 SUMM ARY OF THE STAT E'S ARGUMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 STATE'S ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES InRe spon se to Po int

of E rr or O ne : Th e evi de nc e is f

ac tua lly suf fi ci en t to s uppo rt

the tr ia l c ourt’ s f

ind ing s, a nd the c ourt di d no t a buse it s d i s c r e t i o n i n c e rt i f

y i n g Ap p e l l a n t
....... ....... ....... ....... .... 12 A St an da rdof r ev ie w of a juv en il e co ur t’s d eci si on to c e r t i f y a j u v e n i l e a s a n a du l t
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 13 B. T he e vid en ce is suf fi ci en t to support the j uve nil e co urt’ s f ind ing s on the four factors re quired by Subsection 54 .02(f)
. . . . . . . . . . . . 15iii 1. Appellant concedes the first finding that the offenses w ere co m m itt ed a ga ins t the pe rs on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Dr . A xelrad’ s opin ion th at Appellant’s bra in was dam aged wa s based on Appellant’s self -report
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3. Appellant m inim izes the evidence of his cri m inal record an d hi sto ry

a s “ m ini m al a nd n on- vio le nt”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. T he se ri ousn es s of A ppe llant’ s of fe nse s, the e sc al at ionof his crim inal activities, his condu ct dis o rd er, and the fac t that the all available resources have been expended sup port the trial court’ s finding that the publ ic cannot be protected an d r eh ab ili ta tio n inthe j uve nil e sy ste m is re m ote
. . . . . . . . 23 5. T he r ec or d su

bst an ti at es the j uve nil e co urt’ s sp ec if ic fa ct ua l f ind ing s, a nd the c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n i n c e rt i f y i n g Ap p e l l a n t
....... ....... ....... ....... . . 26 In Response to Point of E rror T wo: Appellant’ s wr itten statem ent was not the pr oduc t of

a n audi o re co rd ing a nd w as ta ke n ina cc or da nc e w ith l a w ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 27 A
. S t a n d a r do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 28 B. A ppe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t w as ta ke n in ac co rd an ce w ith Se ct ion51. 095, a nd n o a buse of dis cr et ionin adm itt ing the s t a t e m e n ti s s h o w n ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 29 InRe spon se to Po int

of E rr or T hree: Any rationa l tri er of f ac t c oul d fi nd b ey ond a re as ona

ble doubt the e le m en t of Appe llant’ s in te nt t o co m m it the ft in ap pr oa ch ing Mr
. G ar za ’ s ve hic le w ithagun . . . . . . . . . . 34 A
. S t a n d a r do f

R e v i e w ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 35 B. The f

indin g of guilt in the robbery of Marsario Garza is war ranted by the cum ulative force of a ll the incrim inating evidence.
. . . . . . . 37iv

P RA Y E R
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 39 C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E..............
....... ....... ....... 39 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E RV I C E
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 39v IND EX OF AU THORITIES C A SE S P age Bu rd en v. St at e, 55 S
. W
. 3d 6 08 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Carm ou ch e v . Sta te , 10 S
. W
. 3d 3 23 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 0)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Dela pa z v . Sta te , N o. 05- 11- 0146 5- CR , 201 3 W L 189 6187 (T ex. App.--D allas May

6, 2013, pet. ref

’ d) ( n o td e s i g n a t e df

o r p ub l i c a t i o n )
....... ....... ....... ....... . . 28- 29 Dewbe rry v. St at e, 4 S
. W
. 3d 7 35 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 199 9)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Mo on v. St at e, 451 S. W
. 3d 2 8 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mo on v. St at e, 41 0 S .W .3d 36 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 13 ), aff’d 451 S
. W
. 3d 2 8 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 26 Gon zal es v. St at e, N o. 04- 14- 0035 2- CR , 201 5 W L 212 4773 (T ex . App- -S anA nto nio May 6, 201 5, pe t. f

ile d Ju ne 1, 201 5)
. . . . . . 16, 26 Guz m an v. St at e, 955 S. W
. 2d 8 5 ( T ex . Cr im
. A pp. 1997 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Ja ck so n v . Virg in ia , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 3 0 7 ( 1 9 7 9 )
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 35 Je ffl ey v. St at e, 38 S
. W
. 3d 8 47 ( T ex . App. -- H oust on [ 14th D ist
. ] 200 1, pe t. r ef ’ d)
. . . 28- 29vi

Jo hn so n v . Sta te , 871 S. W
. 2d 1 83 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 199 3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Po well v. St at e, 194 S. W
. 3d 5 03 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 6)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35- 36, 38 Ro ss v. St at e, 133 S. W
. 3d 6 18 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 4)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 St at e v . Ros s, 32 S
. W
. 3d 8 53 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 0)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
STA TUT ES A ND RU LES COD E O F CRI MIN AL PRO CE DU RE S e c t i o n 3 8
. 2 2
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 27, 33 S e c t i o n 3 8
. 2 3
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 27 FAMILY CODE S e c t i o n 5 1
. 0 9 5
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 27- 31, 33- 34 S e c t i o n 5 4
. 0 2
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 12- 15, 23 PENAL CODE S e c t i o n 2 9
. 0 1
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 36, 37 S e c t i o n 2 9
. 0 2
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 36 S e c t i o n 2 9
. 0 3
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 36 S e c t i o n 3 1
. 0 3
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 36 RUL ES OF AP PE LL AT E P ROC ED URE R u l e 3 8
. 2
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . i, 1 RUL ES OF EV ID EN CE R u l e 4 0 4
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 35vii No. 01-14-003 35-CR No. 01-14-003 36-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRS T JUDICI AL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON , TEXA S CA U SE N O S. 12- D CR -0 6192 0 & 12- D CR -0 6192 1 IN TH E 240 DI ST RICT CO URT

TH FORT BEND COUNTY, T EXAS
DA MION GEN TRY , A ppellant

VS . STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee
STATE 'S BRIE F ON DIRECT APPEAL
TO THE HON ORA BLE C OUR T OF AP PE ALS :
STA TEM ENT OF THE C AS E A p p e l l a n t ap p e a l s h i s t w o c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a g g r a v a t e dr o b b e ry w i t h af i r e a rm, which w e r e bo t h c om

m i t t e d on or abo ut Janu a ry 19 , 20 12 , w he n A pp e l l a nt wa s fo urte eny ears a nd t enm onths o ld. [ 2R R7 , 6R R6 6, 9R R4 ] On N ovem

ber 1 5, 20 12, after a lengthy certific ation hearing, the juvenile court
w ai ve d it s j ur isd ic tio n a nd transf er re d Appe llant’ s tw o ag gr av at ed r obbe ry c as es toFo r ea se in re fe re nc e, the S ta te w ill a dopt Appe llant’s sy ste m

of 1 re fe re nc es to the re co rd as show n on pa ge iv of his br ie f. T he Ce rt if ic at ionH eari ng is “ ___C H ___” an d th e Su

ppr es sio n H eari ng i s “___S H ___. ” T he Cl er k’ s R ec or ds w ill be r ef

er en ce d by

the la st thr ee num

be rs in ea chc au se num

be r in this Co urt. vii i the dis tr ic t c ourt. [ 2C H 177- 78] A j ur y fo und Appe llant gui lty of both of fe nse s and 1 assessed pun ishm ent for ea ch offense at f ifty y ears im prisonm ent and a $ 10,000 fine. [13RR4-5] T he trial court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the j ury ’ s verdict
o n A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 1 4
. [ 1 3 R R 1 , 6 ] A p p e l l a n tt i me l y f i l e dh i s n o t i c e s o f

ap p e a l t h e s a me da y . [ CR -3 35 a t 26 5, CR -3 36 a t 33 8]

STATE MENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT A t h o ro u g h re c o r d w a s m ad e a t t h e c er t i fi ca t i o n h ea ri n g o f A p p el l an t ’s
m at ur ity an d cu lpa

bil ity as the shoo te r in tw o ag gr av at ed ro bbe ri es ag ai nst
unsu specting, hard-w orking in divid uals, and the sam e t h o rough presentatio n was
m ad e at tr ia l. Appe llant c om

m itt ed the se a ggr av at ed

r obbe ri es aft er the F ort B en d County Juvenil e Probation Departm ent had worked w ith him for the near ly

five y ears (b eg inn ing w he n Appe llant w as te n y ears old ) an d ha d e xpe nde d a ll av ai la ble
se rv ic es . T he S ta te be lie ve s it s br ie f se ts fo rth the re le va nt evi de nc e in s uppo rt of the de ci sio ns o f the j uve nil e co urt, the tr ia l c ourt, a nd the j ur y ; and o ra l arg um en t w ill unl ike ly be of a ssi stanc e to the Co urt.1 STA TEM ENT OF FA CTS Pursuant to Te x . R. App. P . 38. 2(a)( 1)(B) , the S tate challenges all fa ctual
as se rt i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n A p p e l l a n t ’ s b r i e f , e x c e p t f o r i n c u l p a t o ry a d m i s s i o n s , a nd
su b m i ts its version of the rele vant facts below and in it s response to Appellant's gr ound s f or r ev ie w . F or

e as e in r ef

er en ce , the S ta te a dopt s Appe llant’ s sc he m e of
re fe re nc ing the r ec or d: CH = Re porte r’ s R ec or d of the Ce rt if

ic at ionH eari ng SH = Re porte r’ s R ec or d of the H eari ng o n Appe llant’ s M oti on t o S uppr es s RR = Reporter’ s Record of the Jury Tr ial in the District Court CR-335 = Cler

k’ s Record in N o. 01-14-0033 5-CR CR-336 = Cler

k’ s Record in N o. 01-14-0033 6-CR
A

. F ac ts r elati ng t o A

ppe lla nt’ s id en tif ic ati on a nd a

ppre he nsi on A t a bout 3:3 0 a
. m . on J anua ry

19, 2012 , Ro se nbe rg Po lic e O ff ic er T hom pson
w as dis pa tc he d to the S um m er L ak es S ubdi vis ion to ass ist the f ir e de pa rtm en t w ith
a car fire. [4RR28, 30, 37, 39] O ne of the arson investig at o rs as k ed Of ficer Thom pson to check for a su spiciou s vehicle at an apartm ent com plex that was under
co nstru ct ion
. [ 4R R4 2] T he apa rtm en t c om ple x w as be hin d the JC Pe nne y sto re in the Br az os T ow n C en te r j ust north o f the sub div isi on. [ 4R R3 7, 42] O ff ic er T hom pson de te rmin edth atth e su sp ic io us ve hi cl e was “ th e constr uc tio nIdent i fi ed by his driver’ s license as D aniel De Santiago-Cara za. 2 [5RR106] Mr. De Santiago-Cara za’ s nam e is m isspelled in the re p o rt er ’ s record a s “ Dan ie l De Sa nt ia go Carr aza.” 2 cr ewthe re to pour

c em en t. ” [ 4R R4 2] H e the n he ar d gu nf ir e fr om the pa rk ing lot

in fr ont of the A ca de m

y sto re ne ar

JC Pe nne y

in the Br az os T ow n C en te r. [ 4R R3 5, 43, 44] O ff ic er T hom psonte sti fi ed

tha t he he ard th ree or

f our sho ts, the n sh ortly thereaf ter, “ heard tires squealing.” [ 4RR45] O ffice r T hom pson did not see anyother
ve hi cl es lea vi ng ex cep t fo r “ on e g ray Fo rdpi ckup tru ckth atwas i n t he pa rk in g l ot .” [4 RR45] O ff

ic er T hom

pson sa w the ve hic le “ m ovi ng pr et ty qui ck
. ” [ 4R R4 8] T he truc k r a n a s t o p s i g n w i t h o u t s l o w i n g , t h e n tu rn e d r i g h t o n F M 7 6 2
. [ 4 R R 48, 50] Of ficer Thom

pson got in his vehicle and followed the gray truck into t h e S u mm er L ak es S ubdi vis ion
. [ 4R R5 0] Of ficer Thom pson activated his em ergency lights and his in -car

video recorder when the truck slowed to a stop on the wrong side of t he road in front of a residence. [4RR53-54, 71; State’ s Ex 2] A s Of ficer Thom

pson exited his vehicle, the passenger, la te r ide nti fi ed

a s Appe llant, got

out
. [4 RR 56] O ff

ic er T hom psontol d Appe llant t o ge t ba ck int o th e ve hic le , w hic h he did , a nd O ff ic er T hom psonor de re d “ the dr ive r to
w al k ba ck

tow ar ds m e. ” [ 4R R5 6] Of ficer Thom pson testified that as he w as speaking with the driver, who w as 2 giv ing a nsw er s tha t w er e obvi ousl y inc or re ct , dis pa tc h se nt o ut a

m es sa ge tha t a3

shoo tin g ha d j ust

oc cu rr ed a t the A ca de m

y . [ 4R R5 8] T he m es sa ge w as w ith in the driver’ s hearing and in concern for his safety , O ffice r T hom pson drewhis service
w ea pon, or de re d th e dr ive r to the gr ound , a nd o rd er ed App el lant out of the ve hic le
an d to the gr ound

a s w el l. [ 4R R5 9] O ff

ic er T hom psonthe n no tif

ie d di spa tc h th at

he poss ib l y h ad t h e suspects inv olved in the shoot ing. [4RR61] While Off icer T hom psonw ai te d f

or ba ck up, A ppe llant an d the dr ive r start ed spe ak ing in Sp an ish , then Appellant got u p and ran towards the fr ont of the truck out of O ffice r T hom pson ’ s si ght
. [ 4R R6 4] Af te r O ff ic er T hom

pson ag ai n m ad e ey e con ta ct w ith A ppe llant, Appe llant t ook of f fr om the sc en e. [ 4R R6 6] O th er of fi ce rs a rr ive d onsc en e in r es pons e to O ff ic er T hom pson ’ s c al l f

or ba ck up, inc lud ing F ort B en d C ounty S he ri ff ’ s D ep uty S t. H ila ir e. [ 5R R1 01, 104 ] De putySt
. Hi l aire te stified that the Sheriff’ s Depar tm ent was investing an earlier sho o t i n g t h a tw a s t h o u g h tt o b e l i n k e dt o t h e s h o o t i n g i n R o s e n b e r g . [ 5 R R1 05] De putySt. Hi l ai re m et w ith Off icer T hom

pson for a quick briefing and p assed that inf orm at ionon t o hi s su

pe rv iso rs . [ 5R R1 05] Ro se nbe rg D et ec tive L eo nhardt w as dis pa tc he d to the sc en e of the sto p, a nd
onc e the re , vie w ed

O ff ic er T hom pson ’ s in -c ar vid eo . [ 5R R5 9, 62] D et
. L eo nhardt im m ed ia te ly r ec ogni ze d f

ourte en -y ear- old

Appe llant as the pa sse nge r. [ 5R R6 3] D et
. Le onhardt an d other detectives we nt to Appellant’s la st kno wn address, wher e A ppe llant’ s st ep -f

athe r al low ed

the m to en te r the tra ile r an d c onse nte d to ase ar ch
.4

[5RR73-74, 75] Appellant wa s detained as he exited the bathroom and was t ra n s p o rt ed d i re ct l y t o J u s t i ce o f th e Pe ac e Ma ry War d ’s o ff i ce fo r hi s ma g i s t r at e’s
wa rn i n g . [5 RR 7 4 , 7 9 -8 0 ] A ppe llant ga ve a w ri tte n sta te m en t in ac co rd an ce w ith the law. [6RR 50-59, 64-71, 96; Sta te’ s Ex 25 ( Appendix A )] In his wr itten statem ent, Appellant adm itted be ing pr es en t a t the c ar

f ir e, the sho oti ng a t the A ca de m y in Ro se nbe rg ( A ppe al N o. 01- 14- 0065 5- CR ), a nd the shoo tin g th at the S he ri ff

’ s D ep ar tm en t w as inv es tig at ing and thou ght was linked to the sho oting in Rosenberg (Appeal N o. 01-14-0065 6-CR). [S ta te ’ s E x 25 ] B

. F ac ts r elati ng t o th e aggr av ate d ro bbe ryof Ne lso n E sc obar in Rosenberg, appeal number 01-14-00 335-CR Ne lson Alberto Mej ia E scobar t e st i f i e d tha t h e w or ke d f or F e de r al Maintenance cl eanin g st or e pa rk ing lot s a t ni ght
. [5 RR 6, 7] O n Ja nuary 19, 2012 , Mr
. E sc obar an d tw o othe r w orke rs w er e cl eanin g th e pa rk ing lot a t the Br az os T ow n C en te r. [ 5R R8 , 10, 11] Mr. Esc obar wa s cleaning the area in front of Ac adem y when “ an F-150 gray in c olo r, one a nd a

ha lf c ab in w ithac hr om e cove rin g on top ” dr ove up t o hi s loc at ion
. [ 5R R1 1, 15, 16] T he re w er e tw o H isp an ic m enin the tr uc k. [ 5R R1 7- 18] T he pa sse nge r spok e to Mr
. E sc obar in E ngl ish , but Mr
. E sc obar tol d hi m

in Sp an ish that he does no t speak English. [5RR21] M r. Esc obar testified that the passenger
w as be tw ee n f

if te ena nd s ixt ee n y ears of

a ge a nd w as dr es se d in b la ck c lothin g w ith5

black glov es. [5RR18] Mr. Esc obar could no t s ee the driver because the driver
m ove d th e tr

uc k f or w ar d w he n th e pa sse nge r got out
. [ 5R R1 8- 19] The passeng er got out of the truck with a black fir earm , pointed it at Mr. E sc obar’ s he ad , an d in S pa nis h to ld M r. E sc obar to g ive him $15 0. [ 5R R1 8, 19, 21] Mr. Esc obar took h is key s out and em ptied ou t his po ckets to sho w the passenger that he had no m oney . [5RR20, 22] The passenger asked for the key s, and Mr. Esc obar gave them

up because the pass en g er was pointin g a gun at him
. [5RR23] Mr. E sc obar a s k e d t h e p a s s e n g e r , “ H a v e m e r c y o n m e , ” “ I b e g o f y o u , h a v e m er cy on
m e, ” “ Don’ t do anything to m e, ” “ Ha ve pity on m e. ” [5RR 25] When the passenger low er ed the gun , the dr ive r tol d th e pa sse nge r, “ Sh oot him
. ” [ 5R R2 6] Mr
. E sc obar te sti fi ed

tha t the pa sse nge r the n tur ne d the gun “ ar ound w iththe gr ip f ac ing the oth er

sid e. A nd the n he goe s li ke thi s, a nd the n he hit s m e lik e thi s he re . H e hit s m e he re li ke thi s wi th the gun . A nd the n r igh t aw ay I br ing m

y ha nd up lik e this, and I push it away to the other side.” [5RR26] Mr. Esc obar then turned
an d r anf or his li fe
. [ 5R R2 6] T he pa sse nge r ch as ed Mr
. E sc obar an d sh ot thr ee or four tim es. [5RR26-27] Mr. Esc obar t ri p p ed an d fell. [5RR28] T he passenger sto ppe d sh oot ing a nd s ai d, “ I al re ady kil le d hi m , ” the n ran ba ck to the tr uc k, got in,
an dl ef t . [5 RR 2 8 ] Ro se nbe rg P oli ce De te ct ive Mo nf ort t es tif ie d th at he r es pond ed

to the sc en e of the shoot ing and Mr. E scobar “ wa s v er y s ca re d . He wa s shakin g, his legs wer e6

sha kin g, his ha nds were shakin g. A nd h e ha d aloo k, li ke a– w ha t w e ca ll a tho usand- y ar d star e. H e w as kin d of like al m ost loo kin g th ro ugh m e as he w as , y ou know, try ing to express his feelings that nig ht.” [5RR86, 92-93 ] Video surveillance
re co rd ing s a lso c or

ro bor at ed Mr
. E sc obar’ s ve rs ionof the shoo tin g a nd s how ed the se events began at 3:28 a. m . [5RR31, State’ s Exhibit 10] In the courtroom , Mr . E scobar ide nti fi ed Appe llant a s th e pe rs on w ho s hot a t hi m . [ 5R R3 7] T hr ee 9m m W inches ter

she ll ca sin gs w er e re co ve re d f ro m the a re a of

the pa rk ing lot

w he re Mr
. E sc obar sa id he w as shot
. [5 RR 86- 91, S ta te ’ s E xs 1 3, 14, 15] Toolm arks on these casings m atched those on two casings recovere d from the truck tha t Appe llant w as r idi ng i n w he n he w as sto ppe d. [5 RR 67, 7R R3 1, 33] Appe llant adm itt ed in his w ri tte n st at em en t, “ an d th enA ca de m y a nd a m an[ D an ie l] hit

him w ith the gun th e m an ran then he fired fired a round th en threwthe gun at m e and I f ired but m is se d an d hi t the f

loo r D an ie l go t m ad

a nd s ai d y our

w ai sti ng m

y bul le ts h oe
a n dth e n f

i r e d1 o r 2 r o u n d s w e l e f

t
. ” [ S t a t e ’s E x 2 5 , s t a t e m e n t a t1
- 2 , v e r b a t i m] A ppe llant g av e “ A ddi tin ol I nf orm at ion :” I confroted the m an. Give m e w at y ou g o t Da n iel translated and then got out the tr

uc k an d hit the m an w ith the gun an d th enthe m anr ana nd he sho t hi m

H e the n th re w the guna t m e and I fi re d but m iss ed an d hi t the f loo r th en D an ie l gr ab be d th e gun got m ad a nd s ai d y our

w ai sti ng m y bul le ts h oe a nd f

ir ed one or tw o m or e ro unds
. [ S t a t e ’s E x 2 5 , s t a t e me n ta t3 , v e r b a t i m]7

C

. F a c t s r e l a t i n g

t o th e a g

gr a v a t e d r o b b e r y o f M a s a r i o G a r

za inv es tigate d by the She rif

f’ s D ep art m en t, app ea l nu m be r 01 -1 4- 0033 6-CR Ma sa ri o G ar za

te sti fi ed tha t in January 2012 , he w as six ty -e igh t y ears old a nd worked for

the Na tional Oi l Com

pany as a pre ss operator. [ 6RR7, 8] Mr. Garza worked a s h i ft fr o m

4:00 a.m . to 2:30 p.m
. [6RR8] Mr. Garza lived in Ros enberg
an d w orke d in H oust on and ha d a reg ular ro ute tha t he too k e ve ry nig ht trave lin g on old Highway

90. [6RR 9] Mr. Garza left hom e at 2:45 or 3:00 a. m . to m ake it to work on t im e. [ 6R R1 0] O n January

19, 201 2, a s Mr
. G ar za ap pr oa ch ed the tr af fi c lig ht on H igh w ay

90 and FM359, the light tu rned red, so he slowed down. [6RR11-12] A “ gray or silver loo kin g” tr

uc k pa sse d Mr. G ar za on the ins ide la ne an d stoppe d at the lig ht. [ 6R R1 2, 14] Mr. G ar za testified that he saw “ this y oung boy get out of the passeng er side. A nd a t f ir st, I tho ught

he w as goi ng to lik e as k m e fo r dir ec tio ns o r I tho ught m ay be he w as goi ng to che ck som ethin g in the be d of the tr uc k. ” [ 6R R1 5] B ut tw o se co nds aft er Mr. Garza saw the boy , he saw tha t the boy ha d agunin his r igh t hand a t the sid e of his le g. [ 6R R1 7] Mr
. G ar za te sti fi ed : Q : Wha t di d y ou s ee the n a ft er y ou s awthe gun ? A: What did I see? I j ust stepp ed on the gas and to ok off. Q : A ll ri ght
. A nd w hy did y ou d o th at

onc e y ou s awtha t gu n? A: Be ca u s e I t h o u g h t , you kn o w, t h i s i s n o g o o dh er e b ec au s e h e’s8 goi ng to try to rob m e or

som ethin g, y ou know . I w as n’ t go ing to w ai t aro und an d se e w ha t he w as goi ng t o do
. Q : O ka y . A nd whe n he – di d y ou e ve r se e him – did so m ethin g e lse ev er ha ppe n a ft er

tha t? A : W he n I took of

f, he shot int o m

y car, dr ive r sid e w ind ow , two tim es . [6 RR 18] Mr. Ga rza’ s side window w as rolled up, and the glass shattered and cut Mr. Garza on the lef

t side of his face and right h and. [ 6RR18-19] Mr. Garza continu ed dr ivi ng d ow n H igh w ay

90, a nd i n hi s r ear vie w m ir ro r, sa w the tr

uc k c om ing up be hin d hi m . [ 6R R2 2] T he tr uc k pa sse d M r. G ar za ’ s ve hic le on the ins ide lane a nd
as it pa ss edby, Mr. Garz a, who was o n th e ph on e wit h t he 9-1 -1 op erat or , hea rdtwo
m o re s h o t s b ei n g fi re d . [6 RR 2 4 ] The tr uck then m ade a U -turn at the cr osso ver and cam e back to wards Mr. G ar za ’ s v e h i c l e . [ 6 RR 2 6 ] A s t h e t r u c kp a s s e d , M r . G a r z ah e a r dt w o m o r e sho ts. [6 RR 27] Mr
. G ar za

f ina lly pul le d in to the pa rk ing lot of ali ttl e re sta

ur an t and the p o l i ce we re t h er e s h o rt l y af t erh e s t o p p ed . [6 RR 2 8 , 2 9 ] Fo rm er F ort Be nd Sh er if

f’ s D ep uty G ott ing te sti fi ed tha t sh e w as c al le d a

bout a shootin g on Highway

90 at about 3: 00 a.m
. [5RR114, 117] DeputyGotting m et Mr
. G ar za an d desc ri be d him as “ ve ry sha ke n. H e se em ed som ew ha t sc at te r- br ai ne d. He wa s very

alarm ed at w hat had just occurr ed.” [5RR119] Con sistent with Mr.Co-defendant , tw enty -two- y ear- old Daniel D esantiago Caraza
. 3 [5 RR 106, 6R R1 09] 9 Garza’ s statem ent, the w indo w of the driver’ s side doo r w as shattered and there w ere tw o b ul le t ho le s onthe ins ide of the f ro nt p as se nge r door
. [ 6R R1 21, 122 ] O ne p ro je ct i l e w as re co v er ed fr o m t h e d o o r. [6 RR 1 2 2 ] O ne f ir ed c ar tr idg e ca se w as re co ve re d bef or e the int er se ct ionof

H igh w ay 90
an d F M 35 9. [7 RR91-9 2] T his c as ing m at ch ed the c as ing s r ec ove re d f

ro m the Ac ad emy p ar k i n g l o t an d t h e tru ck i n wh i ch Ap p el l an twa s ri d i n g . [7 RR 5 0 , S t at e’s E x 28 ] Mr. Garza testified that he saw the b o y for “ like two secon ds” and described him a s S pa nis h lo oki ng, in his la te te en s, w ith lig hte r ski n ton e. [6 RR 16] Appe llant adm itt ed in his w ri tte n st at em en t tha t “ T hur sday A
. M. on 90 D an ie l pol le d [ sic ] up 3 to the c ar I got out a ct ed li ke I ha d aguna nd the n D an ie l sh ot c au se he r ea lly ha d th e g u n t h e c i v i l l ai n [s i c] dr o v e o ff we ch as ed h i m Da n i el fi re d 3 m o re ro u n d s .” [S t at e’s E x 2 5 , p a g e 1 o f

t h e s t a t e me n tf

o rm, v e r b a t i m]10 SUMMARY OF THE ST ATE' S ARGUMENT A s be st the S ta te c andis ce rn , Appe llant a sse rt s th e ev ide nc e is f ac tua lly ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the j uve nil e co urt’ s f

ind ing s on f

ac tor s th at

the c ourt i s required to consider by

statute before ce rtify ing a juvenile to stand trial in dist rict
co urt. T he fi ndi ngs in the j uve nil e co urt’ s or de r w ai vin g it s or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n a nd tr an sf er ri ng Appe llant’ s tw o c as es f or a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry is supp or te d by

the
ev ide nc e ad duc ed

a t the le ngthy

a nd thor oughc er

tif ic at ionhe ar ing tha t i nc lud ed the te sti m ony of D r. K ar enG oll ah er , a psy ch olo gis t; D r. D av id A xe lr ad , apsy ch ia tr ist ; Sh an e Ma rv in, a court lia iso n off ic er w ith the Fo rt Be nd Coun ty Juve nil e Pr oba tio n De partm ent; both victim s; officer s and detectives from the Rosenberg Police and Fire De partm ents and the For t Be n d County Sherif f’ s Of fice; and Jus tice of the Pe ace Mar y W ard who ga ve App el la nt hi s ju ve ni le m ag is tra te ’s warn in gs . Appellant’ s offenses we re com m itted on inno cent people on their w ay to work or on the job, and wer e w hollyunprovo k ed
. Ap p el lant pursued and shot at each vic tim at cl ose range . A ppe llant co m m itt ed the se of

fe nse s af te r th e Ju ve nil e Probation Departm ent had expended all available resources w ith him , having worked
w ith A ppe llant sinc e he w as te n y ears old
. A ppe llant has ana ve ra ge int el lig en ce a nd is s tr ee t savvy . P sy c h o l o g i c a l t es tin g r ev ea le d Appe llant h as “ Co nduc t D iso rd er , ” an d D r. G oll ah er

opi ne d th at

Appe llant w as on the pa th t o a nti soc ia l be ha vio r. T he11

j uve nil e co urt’ s f

ind ing s are not

so a ga ins t the gr ea t w ei ght an d pr ep onde ranc e of the
ev ide nc e as to be c le ar ly

w ro ng o r unj ust , and n o a buse of dis cr et ionis show n. Appellant asserts that because the audio recording of Appe l lant’ s interview
w ithde te ct ive s w as sup pr es se d, his w ri tte n st at em en t sh oul d a lso be sup pr es se d. A ppe llant f

ai ls t o te ll thi s C ourt tha t the audi o r ec or din g a nd t es tim ony about A ppe llant’ s or al sta te m en ts d ur ing the int er

vie w w er e supp re sse d be ca use Jud ge W ard ’s m ag is tra te warn in gs , whi c h w e re g iv en to App el la nt be fo re h is in te rv ie w,
w er e not r ec or de d a s r equir ed by Se ct ion51. 095, F am ily Co de
. T he tr ia l c ourt di d not m ak e a fi ndi ng tha t Appe llant’ s st at em en ts w er e inv olu ntary . T he a dm iss ibi lity of Appe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t i s go ve rn ed by S ec tio n 51
. 095, F am ily

Co de
. Jud ge W ar d’ s te sti m ony

tha t sh e co m

pli ed w iththe r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion51. 095 is
co rr obor at ed

by the c om ple te d f orm us ed to ta ke Appe llant’ s st at em en t, a nd the sta te m en t i s a dm iss ibl e. T he tr ia l court di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ina dm itt ing A ppe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t. Inc la im ing the e vid en ce is ins uf fi ci en t to su

ppor t hi s c onvi ct ionf

or the aggravated robbery of Marsario Garza in Cause No. 12-D CR-061921 in the district
co ur t; No. 01- 14- 0033 6- CR in thi s C ourt, Appe llant f ai ls t o in cl ude a ll of

the evidence adduced at trial. Specif ically , Mr . G arza ’ s testim ony that he thoug ht he was goi ng t o ge t ro bbe d an d st ep pe d onthe ga s be ca use he w as not

goi ng t o w ai t aro und to f ind out ; and tha t w ith in ab out a ha lf hour of the r obbe ry

of Mr
. G ar za , Appe llant12

dem anded $15 0 from

Ne lson Esco b ar , al so at gunp oint. Any rational trier of fac t could find b ey ond a reasonable doub t from th e we i g h t of all the evidence that A ppe llant was in the c our se of c om m itt ing the ft

a nd w iththe int en t t o ob ta in pr ope rty , thr ea te ne d M r. G ar za w ithade ad ly

w ea pon.
STATE ’S ARGUMENT Ap pellant’ s Point of Error One

“ A ppe llant c ont en ds tha t the j uveni le c ourt’ s r ea sons f or c er tif y ing A ppe llant w er e ins uf

fi ci en t and a

buse d it s di sc re tio n. ” [ Br a t 2, 15] State ’s A nsw er T he e vid en ce is fa ct

ua lly suf fi ci en t to support the tr ia l c ourt’ s f ind ing s, an d th e co urt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inc er

tif y ing Appe llant. Ar gum ent In his fi rs t poi nt of er

ro r, “ A ppe llant co nte nds tha t the j uve nil e co urt’ s f ind ing s do n ot s up po rt its de ci sio n to c er tif y Appe llant i n th is c as e. ” [ Br a t 16 ] Appe llant also asserts, “ The j uvenile courts [sic] rea sons for tran s fe r to crim inal court wer e ins uf fi ci en t ba se d up on the e vid en ce pr es en te d un de r Se ct io n 54.0 2( f)
. ” [ Br a t 17 ] Appellant then provid es rec ord citations and argues in his favor the four factors that
m ust be considered under Section 54.02(f). [Br at 17-24] As best the State can unde rs ta nd, Appe llant’ s c om pla int is tha t the j uvenile c ourt’ s f ind ing s onthe f

our st at ut or y fact or s i s fa ct ua ll y

in su ffi ci en t.13

A Stan dard o

f r ev i ew of a juvenile court’s decision to certify a juv en ile as a n ad

ult Section 54.02(a)( 3) provides in relevant part that “ [t ]h e j uvenile court m ay
wa ive its exclusive origin al j urisdictio n and transfer a child to th e appropriate district court or crim inal district court for crim inal proceedings if: (1 ) the c hild is a lle ge d to ha ve vio la te d ape na l l awof the gr ad e of f e l o n y; (2 ) the c hil d w as : (A ) 14 y ears of

a ge or old er a t the ti m e he is al le ge d to ha ve co m m itt ed the of

fe nse , if the of fe nse is a . . . f

el ony of the fir s t d egree, and no adjudication hearing has been conducted concerning that offense;

. . . . (3) after

a full investigatio n and a hearing, the juv en ile court de te rm ine s th at

the re is pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve tha t the c hil d be fo re the c ourt com

m itt ed the of

fe nse al le ge d and tha t be ca use of the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse a lle ge d or

the ba ck gr ound

of the ch ild th e w e lf ar e of the c om m uni ty r equir es c ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs. Te x. Fam . C ode § 54.02(a) (W est 2012 ). Su bs ect io n 5 4.0 2( f) p ro vi de s, (f ) Inm ak ing the de te rm ina tio n r equir ed by Su bs ect ion( a) of

thi s se ct ion , the c ourt sh al l c onsi de r, a m ong oth er m at te rs : ( 1 ) w h e t h e r

t h e a l l e g e do f

f e n s e wa s a g a i n s t p e r s o n o r p r o p e rt y, with greate r w eight in favor of transfer give n t o offenses ag ai nst the pe rs on; (2 ) the sop his tic at iona nd m at ur ity of the c hil d;14 (3 ) the r ec or d a nd p re vio us h ist or y of the c hil d; and (4 ) the pr ospe ct s of ade qua te pr ote ct ion of the pub lic a nd the lik el ihoo d of

the r eh ab ili ta tio n of

the c hil d by

use of pr oced ur es , se rv ic es , a nd f ac ili tie s c ur

re ntl y a va ila ble to the j uve nil e co urt. Te x. Fam . C ode § 54.02(f) (W est 2012 ).

“ [I] n evaluating a juvenile court’ s decision to wa ive its j urisdictio n, an ap pe lla te c ourt sh oul d f

ir st r ev ie w the j uve nil e co urt’ s sp ec if ic f ind ing s of fa ct regarding the Section 54.02(f) f actors under “ traditional suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce r ev ie w . ” Bu t it sh oul d th enr ev ie w the j uve nil e co urt’ s ul tim at e w aive r de ci sio n un de r anabuse of dis cr et ion standard
. T ha t i s to sa y , in de ci din g w he the r the j uve nil e co urt e rr ed to co nc lud e tha t the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse al le ge d an d/o r the ba ck gr ound of the j uve nil e ca lle d f

or c ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs f or the w el fare of the co mm u n i t y , th e ap pe ll at e co ur t s ho ul d s im pl y ask , in li gh t o f it s o wn an al y s i s o f

t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s up p o rtt h e S e c t i on 54. 02 (f) f ac tor s and any

oth er r el ev an t e vid en ce , w he the r the j uve nil e co ur t ac te d wi th ou t re fere nc e to gu id in g ru le s o r pr in ci pl es . In oth er w or ds, w as its tr an sf er de ci sio n e sse nti al ly

a rb itr ar y , giv enthe ev ide nc e uponw hic h it

was ba se d, or

did it r ep re se nt a

r ea sona bly principled appl ication of the legislativ e cr iteria? And, of c ourse, reviewing courts sh ould bear in m ind th at not every Sec tion 5 4.02(f) factor m ust weigh in favor of transfer to justify

the ju v en i le court's di sc ret io na ry

de ci si on to waiv e it s ju ris di ct io n. M oon v. Sta te , 451 S
. W
. 3d 2 8, 47 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 4) ( pa ra gr ap h br eaks a dde d, footnot e citation om itted).15

B

. Th e ev ide nc e is s uff ic ie nt to suppo rt the juv en ile co urt ’s fi ndi ngs on the fou r factors required by Su bsection 54 .02(f). W ithr eg ar d to the co m

pl ai ne d- of

S ubse ct ion54. 02( f) f

ac tor s, the j uve nil e court found in each c ase: T he c hil d th e subj ec t of

thi s su it w as fo ur te en ( 14) y ears of a ge a t the tim e of th e al le ge d of

fe nse s m ad e the ba sis of thi s su it. T he c hil d is currently fiftee n (15) y ears of age. T he of fe nse s are a ga ins t the pe rs on. That D AMI ON GENT RY is s u ff iciently sophi sticated and m ature en oughto be tr ie d a s an a dul t That D AMI ON GENT RY is able to assist h is attorney in his defense. Th a t D A M I O N G EN T RY ha s a r e c or d a nd r e f e rr a l hi st or

y a nd that previous h istory

is such that DA MIO N G EN TR Y should stand trial as ana dul t. T ha t the publ ic cannot

be pr ote ct ed

if D A MI O N G E N T RY r em ai ns i n the j uve nil e sy ste m

a nd tha t the li ke lih ood tha t the j uve nil e sy ste m c oul d rehabilitate D AMI ON GENT RY is very rem ote. [C R- 335 at

226 , CR -3 36 a t 28 5] Pe rt ine nt t o th e sta tut or

y f ac tor s, the j uve nil e co urt f urthe r fo und: Both acts m ade the basis of this su it would be felonies of the first degree unde r the pe na l l aw s of

the S ta te of

T ex as if c om m itt ed a s an a dul t. The a lleged offenses we re of a serious nature, and inv olve the use of a de ad ly w ea pon. A ddi tio na lly , tha t on e vic tim w as f ound to be ove r the ag e of six ty -f ive ( 65) y ears .16

T ha t be ca use of the re co rd

a nd p re vio us h ist or

y of the c hil d a nd b ec au se of the e xtr em e an d se ve re na tur e of the al le ge d of fe nse s, the pr ospe ct s o f a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n o f

t h e p ub l i c , an dt h e l i k e l i h o o do r r e a sonable re habil ita ti on of

the c hil d by

use of the pr oc ed

ur es , se rv ic es , a nd fa ci lit ie s w hic h a re curr en tly a va ila ble to the Juv en ile Co urt are in doub t. Th e r e f or e, th e Co ur t fi nd s t ha t af te r co ns id eri ng all of t he tes ti m o n y, d i ag n o s t i c s tu d y, so ci al ev al u at i o n , a n dfu l l i n v es t i g at i o n o f th e c h i l d ’s circum stances and the circum stances of the alleged offe nses, the Court f i nd s i ti s c on t r a ry

t o t he b e st

i nt e r e st o f t he p ub l i c t o r e m a i n un der juv en il e juri sd ic ti on . T he Co urt spec if

ic al ly f ind s th at be ca use of the se ri ousn es s of

the al le ge d of

fe nse s and the ba ck gr ound of the c hil d, the w el fare of the co m m uni ty r equir es c ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs. [C R- 335 at

226 -2 7, CR -3 36 a t 28 5- 86]

“ Under a fac tual sufficiency challenge, w e consider all of the evidence pr es en te d to de te rm ine if th e co ur t’ s f

ind ing is so a ga ins t the gr ea t w ei ght a nd preponderance o f th e evid ence as to be clearly wr ong o r unjust. ” M

oon v. Sta te , 410 S.W .3d 36 6, 37 1 (Tex . Ap p.-- Hou st on [1 st Dis t.] 20 13 ), aff’d 451 S
. W
. 3d 2 8 ( T ex . Cri m . App . 20 14 ), se e als o G onza les v . Sta te , N o . 0 4 -1 4 -0 0 3 5 2 -C R, 2 0 1 5 WL 2124 773, a t *4 -* 5 ( T ex . App- -S anA nto nio May 6, 201 5, pe t. file d Ju ne 1, 201 5) (a ppl y ing M

oon ). T he e vid en ce be fo re the j uve nil e co ur t a t the c er

tif ic at ionhe ar ing inc lud ed :

• T he psy ch olo gic al e va lua tio n r ep ort of D r. K ar enK
. G oll ah er . [St at e’ s E xhi bit 14]

• T he te sti m ony

of D r. G oll ah er . [ 1C H 293- 392]17

• The f

orensic psy chiatric consultati o n report of D r. A. David Axelrad, which inc lud ed the ne ur opsy ch olo gic al e va luatio n re port o f D r. L ar ry P oll oc k. [R es pond en t’ s E xhi bit

1]

• T he te sti m ony

of D r. A xe lr ad

[ 2C H 75- 155]

• T he te sti m ony

of Ro se nber g P oli ce O ff

ic er T hom pson[ 1C H 21- 74] , a nd Li eu t en an tDu n n [1 CH 1 7 3 -2 3 1 ].

• The te stim ony of Ne lson Escobar, the victim of the Rosenberg robbery [1CH 7 5 -1 0 8 ], an dh i s co -w o rk erJ es u s He rr er a [ 1 CH 1 0 9 -1 5 ].

• T he sur

ve ill an ce vid eo r ec or din g of the a ggr av at ed

r obbe ry sho w ing A

ppe llant ch as ing Mr
. E sc obar an d sh oot ing a t c los e range . [ St at e’ s E x 9]

• T he te sti m ony

of Mars ar io G ar za , the vic tim of the a gg ravat ed

r obbe ry on H igh w ay 90 and F M 3 59. [ 1C H 116- 35]

• T he te sti m ony

of F ort B en d C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s D et ec tiv e Mc K inn on [ 1C H 232- 57] , a nd D et ec tiv e Ch es se r. [ 1C H 258- 79]

• T he te sti m ony

of Jus tic e of

the P ea ce Mary

W ar d, w ho a dm ini ste re d th e m ag istra te ’ s w ar

nin gs t o Appe llant. [ 1C H 136- 71]

• A ppe llant’ s m ag istra te ’ s w ar nin gs and w ri tte n st at em en t. [ St at e’ s E xhi bit 12]

• T he te sti m ony

of f ir e inv es tig at or

Joh n V ill ar ea l. [ 1C H 280- 91] T he S ta te w ill sum

m ar iz e A ppe llant’ s arg um en t w ithr eg ar d to the f ind ing s and showthe e vid en ce sup portin g th e fi ndi ngs, non e of w hic h a re c le ar ly w ro ng o r unj ust
. 1. A ppe lla nt con ce des the fir

st fin din g that t

he off en ses w er e co m m itt ed

aga ins t the pe rso n. Appellant concedes as cor r e c t the f i r st f i nd i ng that the offenses w ere com m itted ag ai n s tt h e p er s o n . [B r a t1 7 -1 8 ]Mi ssp el le d “ A xe lr od” in the r ep orte r’ s r ec or d. 4 Mi ssp el le d “ Po llu ck ” in the r ep orte r’ s r ec or d. 5 18 2. Dr. Ax elrad’s opi nion that Appellant ’s brain was damaged wa s ba se d on A

ppe lla nt’ s se lf- re port
. A ppe llant c ha lle nge s the j uve nil e co urt’ s se co nd fi ndi ng, ci tin g th e te sti m ony of Dr . A xelrad that “ based on the histo ry [Appellant] shar ed with m e, ” Appellant has 4

“ a br ai n th at

ha s be eninj ur ed
. ” [ Br

a t 19 ] Appe llant argue s, “ th e ev ide nc e cl earl y showed Dr . Axelrad, a p sy chiatrist, for over 40 y ears, testified that Appellant suffere d from head injurie s and neurops y cholog ical deficits that ar e involv ing th e sam e ar eas of the brain that have not been fully m atured or dev eloped or m am elonated. ( RR, C H 2 a t9 1 )
. ” [ B r

a t1 9 , v e r

b a t i m] Insup port of

the tr ia l c ourt’ s f

ind ing , the e vid en ce sho w ed :

• D r. G oll ah er

dis ag re ed

w ithD r. P oll oc k’ s di ag nosi s and c onc lus ion s up on 5 which D r. Axelr ad relied. [1CH318, 2CH98-100] Specifica lly , Dr. Gollaher did not se e sig nif

ic an t ne ur opsy ch olo gic al im pa irm en t. [ 1C H 317- 18]

• Dr . G ollaher testified that Appellant’ s IQ score of 107 is in the average r ange. [1CH 302] T his score is co n fi rm ed by an ear lier score of 108 as obt ained at FortB e nd

C ou nty j uv e ni l e d e t e nt i onaf

e w m on t hs p r i or , a nd

D r . Pollock obt ai ne d af

ull sc al e sc or e of

93, “ in the A ve ra ge r an ge . ” [ CH -S ta te ’ s E x 14 at 5, CH -R es pond en t’ s E x 1, A tta chC at 5]

• D r. G oll ah er

r ep orte d tha t A ppe llant re ad in the av er ag e range a nd e qui va le nt to e igh th g ra de le ve ls, his spe lli ng w as in the a ve ra ge r an ge a nd equ iva le nt t o te nth gr ad e le ve ls, but his m ath wa s in the low -ave ra ge r an ge a nd e qui va le nt to fifth grade levels. [CH -State’ s Ex 14 at 5] D r. Pollock obt ai n ed sim ilar results, “ Sentence C om

prehension was at the 10th grade l evel. Spelling was19

atth e 8 th gra de lev el . Mat h C om pu ta ti on was av erag e at th e 6t h gr ad e le ve l.” [C H -R es pond en t’ s E x 1, A tta chC at 4]

• D r. G oll ah er

te sti fi ed tha t i n he r int er

vie w w ith A ppe llant she did not fi nd any m en t al h ea l t h i mp ai rmen t , p s ych o s i s , o r a n yth i n g t h at i m p ac t ed Ap p el l an t ’s ab ili ty to unde rs ta nd the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n r igh t and w ro ng. [ 1C H 313]

• D r. G oll ah er te sti fi ed tha t Appe llant i s “ ca

pable of m ak ing de ci sio ns, ” an d a ny pr es en ce of

A D H D “ [c ] er

ta inl y didn’ t i m pa ir tha t a bil ity
. ” [ 1C H 336- 37]

• Dr . G ollaher testified with regard to Appellant’ s crim inal soph istication, that Appell an t “ be ga n to a ct

out , ini tia lly

a t a y oung a ge , m ai nly

r el at ed to his em oti ons. [ T he re ] w er e re ports o f a num be r [o f] f igh ts, inc lud ing the ga ngre la te d f igh ts a s w el l a s in div idu al f igh ts, m ovi ng t o be ing in vo lv ed w ith ga ngs, be ing j um

pe d. S o a ga in, tha t pat te rn of se ei ng som eo ne inv olv ed w ith i n cr ea s i n g l y m o re v i o l en tcr i m e. . . . [C ]er t ai n l y wh en y o u s ee s o m eo n e w h o ’s al re ad y e n g a g ed i n a p at t er n o f v i o l en tb eh av i o r, y o u ’re wo n d er i n g wh at ’s ne xt[ ?] ” [1 CH 339] D r. G oll ah er fo und tha t Ap pe llant al re ady ha s a histo ry of vio le nc e an d is c ri m ina l so phi sti ca te d. [ 1C H 340]

• J u s t i ce o f t h e P ea ce Ma ry Ward t es t i fi ed t h at i n t h e c o u rs e o f t h e mag i s t ra t e’s warnings, Appellant “ cam e acr oss to m e as that he w as very str ee t wi se, had le ar ne d - - ha d th at know le dge an d co uld pr et ty m uc h handl e be ing a17 o r 18 y ear- old e as ily
. ” [1 CH 162] Appe llan t w a s a“ [m ] at

ur e y oung m an . ” [ 1C H 162]

• Rosenber g P ol i c e D e t e c t i ve T r a c i e D un n t e st i f i e d t ha tdur i ng t he i nt e rvi ew wit h d et ect iv es , App el la nt was “ ex tre m el y ” st reet sav vy, “ ve ry st reet sm art ,”
“ very articulate, ” and “ intellig ent on top of that.” [1CH 202] D et. Dunn further te st ifi edth atApp el la nt “ kn ows ho w to ki nd of wo rka ro om ,” is “ ve ry po li te ,” ha s go od m an ne rs , an d “ it’ s li ke he a lm ost kno w s w ha t t o say

a nd w ha t no t t o sa y . He’ s v ery care fu l ab o u t it . He’ s v ery cal cu la te d o n wh athe says.” [1 CH 202]

• D et
. D unn furthe r te sti fi ed tha t Appe llant “ ne ve r de m onstrated or gave a ny im pr es si on . . . th atin an y way he was i nf

lu en ced b y

an y on e in th atcar,” refe rencing his twenty -two y ear old co-defendant, D aniel De santiago Caraza. [1 CH 211]Mi ssp el le d “ Mc K en na ” in the r ep orte r’ s r ec or d. 6 20 • Fo rt

Be nd C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s D et ec tiv e D av id M cK inn on te sti fi ed tha t he 6 tho ught Appe llant w as “ [m ] or e m at ur e fo r his a ge , ” “ is p re tty str ee t savvy

f or his a ge , ” an d di d no t a

ppe ar to ha ve an y sig nif

ic an t bra in issu es . [ 1C H 245- 46, 249- 50]

• Sh an e Marv in, F ort B en d C ounty Juv en ile P ro ba tio n D ep ar tm en t c ourt l ia iso n of fi ce r, te sti fi ed

tha t Appe llant is a le ad er in good a nd b ad w ay s. [ 2C H 8] A p p e l l a n tc o u l dg e to t h e r ju v e n i l e s s t i rr e dup a n dc o u l da l s o t e l l o t h e r s “ h e y, loo k, ge t ou t he re, do w ha t y ou n ee d to do, a nd g o to c ourt, don ’ t m ak e the sa m e m ist ak es I m ad e. ” [ 2C R8 -9 ] When all of the evidence is considered, the juv en i l e co urt’ s finding “ [t] hat DA MIO N G EN TR

Y is suffic iently

sophi sticated and m ature enough to be tried as an ad ult ” is no t

so a ga ins t the gr ea t w ei ght an d pr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce a s to be cl earl y w ro ng o r unj ust
. 3. A ppe lla nt m ini m izes th e ev ide nc e of h is c rim ina l re co rd and h istor

y as “m inimal and

non-violent.” A ppe llant c ha lle nge s th e j uve nil e co urt’ s f ind ing on the thi rd

sta tut or y f ac tor by c iti ng a portio n of

the te sti m ony

of S ha ne Marv in, the j uve nil e pr oba tio n de pa rtm en t’ s c ourt l ia iso n of fi ce r. [Br at

20] Appe llant m ini m iz es his r ec or d in describing it as “ m inim al and non-vio lent.” [Br at 20] Appellant also in fers that Mr
. Marvin had recom

m ended that Appellant be sent to TJJD , rather than cer tification [Br at 20] , despi te Mr
. Marv in’ s te sti m ony tha t hi s de pa rtm en t do es not m ak e
re co m m en d at i o n s o n ce rt i fi ca t i o n [2 CH 6 6 ].21

Insup port of

the tr ia l c ourt’ s f

ind ing , the e vid en ce sho w ed :

• Mr. Marvin testified that since 2007 to the present, the departm ent has had tw el ve r ef

er ra ls. [ 2C H 18] T he fi rs t r ef er ra l onw as f

or Appe llant b ei ng a

r un aw ay w he n he w as te n y ears old
. [ 2C H 19]

• Mr
. Marv in t es tif

ie d th at be fo re c om

m itt ing the ins ta nt a ggr av at ed r obbe ri es , A ppe llant h ad

a cc es s to ind ivi dua l, gr oup, a nd b eh av io r- m odi fi ca tio n counselin g; had been twice placed o n probation and given comm unityservice; had gone throu gh a lock-down placem ent for drug treatm ent; had received al co hol a nd dru g co unse lin g se rv ic es m ult ipl e tim es w iththe j uve nil e probation departm ent; had been given m ental health services; and wa s placed outsi de his hom e. [2CH 20-21] App ellant was a lso placed in the TCO OMI tur n- ar ound pr ogr am , JJA E P j uve nil e boot c am p, a nd a m al e m entor shi p pr ogr am . [2C H 44, 51] In shor t, A ppe llant has be en giv en ac ce ss to eve ry ty pe of r eh ab ili ta tiv e p r o g ram

the F ort B en d C ounty

Juv en ile P ro ba tio n D ep ar tm en t ha d to of fe r an d st ill c om

m itt ed the se a ggr av at ed

r obbe ri es . [ 2C H 21]

• Mr. Marvin testified that since being h eld in juvenile detention from January 19, 201 2, Appe llant h as ha d f ourte en writ e- ups fo r ex ce ssi ve ta lki ng and dis ru pti on; not f oll ow ing ins tr

uc tio ns; fi ght ing ; re fu sin g to at te nd cl as s; t ak ing a te ac he r’ s pe n a nd l y ing about havi ng perm iss ionto ta ke it ; ki ck ing a nd hit tin g hi s c el l do or an d y el lin g, “ Fu ck r oom c onf ine m en t” ; “ sta tin g he did

not w an t any H isp an ic s wit h the bla ck s” ; r ef usi ng t o gi ve up a

por k c hop bone w hil e in his ce ll; re fu sin g to giv e up his she et s an d to m ak e his be d; h itt ing the door m ult ipl e tim es a nd r ef

usi ng t o st op; c al lin g a nothe r j uve nil e na m es a nd starting to walk toward that j uvenile; po ssessin g contraband, includin g needles hid de n inhis e y eg la sse s; try ing to inc ite ar iot by ba ngi ng wit h hi s hand , kic kin g th e door , f

loo din g hi s r oom , a nd s cr eam ing f or a n hour
. [ 2C H 23- 32]

• Mr. Marvin testified that when Appellant was twe lve y ears old, Appellant w as placed on a twelve- m onth probation for assault of a publ ic servant from May 28, 200 9, unt il May 27, 2010
. [2 CH 37] D r. G oll ah er te sti fi ed tha t the of

fe nse inv olv ed ch oki ng a te ac he r. [1 CH 322] Mr
. Marv in te sti fi ed that App el la nt suc ce ssf ull y c om ple te d th at

pr oba tio n, b ut had

tw o vi ola tio ns- -o ne f

or t h r e a t e n i n g t o b l o w up t h e s c h o o l , a n d t h e o t h e r f o r l e a v i n g h i s mo t h e r ’s h o me an d st ay ing out

un ti l 8:3 0 to 9:0 0 p. m . w ithboy s a ge six te ena nd o lde r an d as soc ia tin g w itha nothe r j uve nil e on p ro ba tio n. [ 2C H 37- 38]22

• Mr
. Marv in te sti fi ed tha t Appe llant i s aga ng m em be r of the S outhw es t C hol os. [2 CH 33] Appe llant w as p la ced on f or m al pr oba tio n f

or six m onths f

ro m D ec em be r 1, 201 0, unt il June 26, 2011 , for ga ng m em

be rs hip or

ga ng sol ic ita tio n. [ 2C H 34, 39] Appe llant h ad the num be r 13 o n hi s be lt, a nd w r i t i n g s , ta ggi ngs, a nd draw ing s inhis ba ck pa ck
. [ 2C H 34] Whil e on p ro ba tio n fo r ga ng m em

be rs hip , Appe llant w ore ga ng r el at ed it em s- -a bla ck a nd w hit e ba ndana , an ex tr a lon g be lt, ta gge d te xtb ooks , an d f la she d si gns in f

ro nt o f his teacher s in schoo l. [2CH 33] Appellant also has three dots on his kn uckle that m ay r ef le ct ga ng a sso ci at ion
. [ 2C H 34] Mr. Marvin testified t h at Appellant “ ultim ately successfully

com pleted” that pr oba tio n, but

ha d th re e vio la tio ns and an a ddi tio na l C la ss C c ita tio n f or de str uc tio n of sc hool cl as se s. [2 CH 39- 40] A ppe llant vio la te d h is proba tio n by w eari ng a band an a and fa ili ng to att en d scho ol, ge tti ng dru nk w ithablo od alcohol content of . 112, and d ri n k i n g Mad D og 20 /20 and sm okin g spice. [2 CH 4 0 -4 1 ]

• Mr. Marvin testified that Appellant has tested posit ive five tim es for m ari j uana. [2 CH 34- 35]

• Mr
. Marv in t es tif ie d th at Appe llant w as absol ute ly not ac andi da te f

or pr oba tio n. [ 2C H 51]

• Mr. Marvin testified that based on the nature of Appellant’s o ffenses-- ag g r a v a t e d r o b b e ry w i t h a d e a d l y w e ap o n a n d a p e n d i n g a r s o n c h a r g e , no pla ce m en t f

ac ili ty w oul d take Appe llant. [ 2C H 53]

• Mr
. Marv in t es tif

ie d th at the de pa rtm en t ha s pr ovi de d a“ m ult itu de of

se rv ic es ” an d pl ac em en t t o a voi d r em ovi ng Appe llant f ro m his hom e. [ 2C H 54- 55] When all of the evidence is co n s i d er ed , the j uvenile court’s f indin g “ [t] hat DA MIO N G EN TR

Y has a rec ord and refer

ral history

and that previous histo ry is such tha t D A MI O N G E N T RY sho uld stand tri al a s an adult ” is no t so against th e grea t
w ei ght and p re pond er an ce of

the e vid en ce a s to be c le ar ly w ro ng o r unj ust
.Dr . A xelrad relied on testing by Dr
. Pollock. [2CH 96-101 ] D r. Pollock 7 r e c o mm e n d e dt h a tAp p e l l a n tb e p r o v i d e d c o g n i t i v e i n t e rv e n t i o n i n P r o je c tR e e n t ry, a pr ogr am

tha t D r. P oll oc k di re ct s. [ 2C H 106, 115 ] 23 4. Th e se rio usness o

f A ppe lla nt’ s of fe ns es, the e sc ala tio n of his criminal activiti es, his conduct diso rder, a n d the fact that th e all availab le resources have been expended supp ort the tri al cou rt’

s findi ng that the publ ic c anno t be prot ec te d an d re habi litati on i n th e juv en ile sy ste m is remote. A ppe llant quot es te sti m ony by D rs . G oll ah er a nd A xe lr ad

a nd arg ue s th at

“ [a ] ll thr ee e xpe rt s a gr ee d a nd i t i s un dis put ed f ro m the r ec or d th at App el la nt s houl d 7 benefit from

rehabilitation and th ese problem s could b e t reate d and did require tr ea tm en t. ” [ Br

a t 2 1- 23] Appe llant d oe s no t pr ovi de a rg um en t r eg ar din g th e fi rs t pa rt of the fou rth f

ac tor , “ the pr ospe ct s of

a de qua te pr ote ct ionof

the pub lic
. ” T ex . Fam . C ode § 54.02(f)(4). Insup port of t he juven ile c ourt’ s f ind ing on the f

ourth s ta tut or

y f ac tor , the
ev ide nc e show s th at :

• Ne lson Escobar wa s working at h is j ob cleaning the parking lo t in front of an A ca de m y sto re w he n agr ay

F -1 50 tru ck

pul le d up ne ar

him
. [ 1C H 77, 80; State’ s Exhibit 10 at 3 :28] Appellant got out of the truck with a gun, pointed it at M r . E sc ob a r ’ s he a d, a nd de m and e d $1 50
. [ 1C H 83 , 84 ] A f t e r Mr. E sc obar tur

ne d hi s pock et s insid e out to showAppe llant h e ha d no m one y a nd be gge d f or his li fe , Appe llant t ook Mr
. E sc obar’ s ke y s and s tr uc k hi m w iththe gun. [ 1C H 88] Mr
. E sc obar too k of f runni ng and Appe llant p ur sue d, sho oti ng thr ee ti m es in ra

pid suc ce ssi on a t c los e range . [ 1C H 89, S ta te ’ s E x 10 a t 3: 28] Whe n M r. Esco ba r f

e l l , App el la nt tu rn edan d s ai d, “ I al read y ki ll edhi m .” [1 CH 104]24

• Si xty -e igh t- y ear- old Ma sa ri o G ar za w as dr ivi ng h is n orm al r out e to h is 4 :00 a. m . to 2:3 0 p. m . w ork sh if t a t N at ion al O il in Ho ust on. [ 1C H 117, 118 , 135 ] As he slowe d for the re d ligh t at H igh wa y 9 0 and FM 359, he sawa truck sto ppe d onthe ins ide lane . [ 1C H 120] A “ y oung kid , ” A ppe llant, ste ppe d ou t of the pa sse nge r’ s sid e of

the tr uc k, a nd M r. G ar za

im m ed ia te ly saw he ha d a gu n in hi s hand. [ 1C H 121] Mr
. G ar za “ ste ppe d onthe ga s, ” an d a s he w en t by , Appellant shot twic e into th e vehicle. [1CH 122] M r. Garza testified that he thoug ht he was going to be robb ed or killed, and “ I w asn’ t g o i ng to st ick around to see which one.” [ 1CH125] T he driver’ s side window w as shattered an d M r. G ar za

w as c ut o n hi s f

ace an d ha nd by

f ly ing gla ss. [ 1C H 131, 133 ] Tw o bull et holes we re found on the insid e o f th e front pass enger’ s door near the doo r ha ndl e. [ 1C H 131]

• A ppe llant t old

D et
. Mc K inn on tha t w he n he a nd B la st ( tw en ty -tw o- y ear- old D an ie l D es an tia go C ar az a) pul le d up ne xt t o th e vic tim ’ s ve hic le , he w as in the pa sse nger’s s ea t. [ 1C H 240] I nc onsi ste nt w ithMr
. G arza ’ s st at em en t, A ppe llant sa id tha t he e xit ed a nd h el d hi s hand l ike he ha d aguna nd ap pr oa ch ed

the vic tim ’ s ve hic le
. [ 1C H 240] Appe llant s ai d th at Bl as t ha d th e gun. [ 1C H 240]

• A ppe llant t old

D et ec tiv es D unn, L eo nhardt, an d McK inn on tha t he and Bl as t ha d be en“ fl ipp ing , ” i.e
. , dr ivi ng aro und. [ 1C H 194] W ithr eg ar d to the sh oo ti ng on Hig hwa y

90 , App el la nt sa id th atBla st want edto ge t “ hi s p ap er,” i.e. , m oney , and they had the specific in tent to rob the person in that vehicle. [1 CH 241]

• While talking to the detectives, Appellant did not ask whether his victim s wer e okay , the ir

c ondi tio n, or

e xpr es s any

c onc er n f or the m . [ 1C H 204]

• De t. D unn testi fied that Appellant never gave the im pression th at he w as under the inf lue nc e of a ny one . [ 1C H 211]

• A p p e l l a n td i dn o ta d mi tt o t h e c a r a r s o n c o mmi t t e d b e f

o r e 2 : 4 3 a . m. t h e s a me early m orning as th e aggravated r obberies, but plac ed h i m s el f at that scene. [1 CH 211, 281 , 284 ]

• Mr
. M ar

v i n , F o r t B en d C ounty

Juv en ile P ro ba tio n, te sti fi ed tha t the de pa rtm en t ha d w orke d w ithAppe llant s inc e 2007 w he n A ppe llant w as te n y ears old , a nd
“ as ade pa rtm en t, w e ha ve e xhaust ed e ve ry thi ng. ” [ 2C H 52, 67]25

• Mr
. Marv in te sti fi ed tha t the de pa rtm en t’ s r ec om m en da tio n w as f

or pla ce m en t in TJJD, wher e the decision to parole Appellant would be left to the TJJD staff af te r a thr ee -y ear m ini m

um stay . [ 2C H 68]

• Dr . G ollaher wa s concerned t hat Appellant would need m ore th an three y ears tim e to r eh ab ili ta te
. [ 1C H 364]

• Dr . G o l l aher disagreed w ith Dr. Axelr ad’ s and Dr. Pollock’ s opin ions th at Appellant has signi ficant n europsy cholog ical is sues. [1CH367] D r. Gollaher did not und er stand h owD r. P oll oc k a rr ive d a t hi s opi nio n giv en the raw da ta from his testing. [1CH 369] Dr . Gollaher di d not have any m edical or fa ctual inform ation to su pport a conclusio n that Ap pellant’ s cogniti ve disorder m ay be due in pa rt

to cl ose d he ad

inj ur ie s. [ 1C H 372]

• Dr
. Go l laher testified that there wa s no inform ation to su ggest that either victim provoked , a gitated, picked at, said, or did anything provocative toward Appellant. [1CH 375] A s best Dr. Gollaher could tell, Appellant’ s acts w ere “ co m ple te ly unp ro voke d. ” [ 1C H 375]

• D r. G oll ah er ag reed tha t so m et im es pe opl e w ithbip olar dis or de r fe el in the m an ic sta te a s Appe llant i ndi ca te s- -s ust ai ne d pe ri ods of f ee lin g a ll- pow er fu l an d no thi ng can pr ev en t him fr om doi ng w ha t he c hoos es to do. [ 1C H 376- 77] If Appe lla nt’ s fe el ing is due to a m an ic sta te , m ed ic at ion s w ill he lp. [ 1C H 377] Bu t if App ellant i s r ef

er ri ng i nst ea d to am ind se t, m ed ic at ion s w ill not he lp. [1 CH 377] D r. G oll ah er ’ s psy ch olo gic al te sti ng did not supp ort a dia gnos is o f bip olar dis or de r. [ 1C H 368]

• Appellant’ s psy ch ol og i c a l t e st s ho w e d a p r i m ar y d i agnosis of conduct diso rder, the pr ec ur sor to ant iso ci al pe rs ona lity dis or de r pr es en t in a y outh un de r 18, a nd D r. G oll ah ar

be lie ve d th at

Appe llant w as on the pa th t o a dia gnos is o f an t i s o ci al b eh av i o r. [1 CH 3 2 3 , 3 6 8 ] Whe n a ll of

the e vid en ce is co nsi de re d, the j uve nil e co urt’ s f ind ing “ [t ] ha t the publ ic cannot be pr ote ct ed if D A MI O N G E N T RY r em ai ns i n th e j uve nil e sy ste m a nd tha t the li ke lih ood tha t the j uve nil e sy ste m c oul d r eh ab ili ta te D A MI O N G E N T RY is26

ve ry r em ote ” is no t

so against th e grea t we ight and preponderance of the e vidence as to b e cl earl y

w ro ng o r unj ust
. 5. Th e re co rd s ubstant iat es t he juv en ile c ourt ’s spe ci fic fac tua l f inding s, and the co urt did not abus e its dis cr et ion in c er tif yi ng A ppe lla nt. Whe n all the ev ide nc e add uc ed at the ce rt if

ic at ion he ar ing is c onsi de re d, non e of the j uve nil e co urt’ s f

ind ing s are so a ga ins t the gr ea t w ei ght a nd p re pond er an ce of the evidence as to be clear ly wr ong o r unjust. Further, the trial court’ s finding s as set fo rth a bove a re a lso sub stanti al ly m or e ca se -s pe ci fi c than th e fi ndi ngs an al y ze d in M oon , w he re the trial co urt’ s f ind ing s on ly

c onsi de re d th at

the of fe nse w as a ga ins t
an ot he r pe rs on . M

oon , 410 S
. W
. 3d a t 37 2 ( “ T he onl y rea son spe ci fi ca lly sta te d on the f ac e of the tr an sf

er or de r to j ust if

y w ai ve r of

j uve nil e j ur isd ic tio n is tha t the of fen se all eg edis a se rio us on e.”). Co mpa re , the f ind ing s inG onza les v . Sta te , 201 5 W L 21 24 77 3, at *5 , wi th the j uve nil e co ur t’s f ind ing s inthi s c as e. N o a buse of dis cr et ionin ce rt if

y ing Appe llant t o st an d tr ia l a s an a dul t i s sh ow n. Po int of E rr or O ne sho uld

be ove rr ule d.27 A p p e l l a n t ’ s P o i n t o f

E r r o r T wo T he tr ia l c ourt c om

m itt ed rev ers ibl e er

ro r an d a buse d it s di sc re tio n in de ny ing appe llant’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s hi s w ri tte n st at em en t. [Br a t 2, 24] State ’s A nsw er A ppe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t w as not the pr oduc t of anaudi o r ec or din g an d was tak en in acco rd an ce wi th law. Ar gum ent Inhis se co nd iss ue , A ppe llant as se rt s tha t the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in adm itt ing his
wr itten statem ent because t h e audio recording was suppressed and the written sta te m en t tha t wa s “ ta ke n si m ult an eo usl y

dur ing the r ec or din g of

the audi o st at em en t

. . . w a s t h e f

r u i to f t h e t a i n t e do r a l , au d i o c o n f e s s i o n a n ds h o u l db e l i k e w ise in ad m is si bl e. W

ong Sun v. U.S., 37 1 U.S.47 1, 83 S.Ct . 40 7, 9 L.Ed.2d 44 1 (1 96 2) .” [B r at 24, 27] Whil e App ellant strives m ighti ly to fram e his argum ent as a Constitutio nal issue, it is not. T he trial court did not find that App ellant’ s statem ents wer e invo luntary
. [2SH 25-26 ] D uring argum ents to the trial court, Appellant conceded that the supp ression of the audio recording and oral s tatem ents to the detectives was ba se d on sta te sta tut es -- Se ct ion 51. 095, Fam ily Co de a nd A rt ic le s 38
. 22 and 3 8. 23, Co de of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e- -b ec au se the w ar nin gs h ad not be enr ec or de d. [ 2S H 4, 5, 6]28

A. Stan dard

of Rev iew Whe n r ev ie w ing atr ia l c ourt' s r uli ng o n a m oti on to suppr es s, w e ap ply an abuse of discretion standard of review , givin g alm ost tot al defer ence to the trial co urt's determ ination of the historical facts that the re cord supp orts, and a de novo standard for the legal com ponen t s o f t h e trial co ur t's de ci si on . Ca rm ouc he v . Sta te , 1 0 S
. W. 3 d3 2 3 , 3 2 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 200 0) ; G uzm an v . Sta te , 955 S
. W
. 2d 8 5, 89 ( Tex . C rim. App. 1997 ). When th e t ri al court m akes no explicit find ings o f historical facts, we view the e vidence in the light m ost favorable to the trial court's ru li ng . Ca rm ouc he , 1 0 S
. W
. 3 d a t 3 2 7

– 2 8
. I f t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s r u l i n g is co rr ec t un de r any

the or y of law appl ic ab le to the ca se , the r uli ng w ill be su st a i ne d. Sta te v . R oss , 32 S
. W
. 3d 8 53, 855 –56 (T ex . Cr im
. App. 2000 ). Sectio n 51
. 09 5 go ve rns t he a dm i ss i bi l i t y o f aj uv e ni l e ' s c us t od i al st at em en t. See Te x. Fam ily Code Ann. § 5 1 .09 5. Achild's wr itten s t a t e m e n ti s a d m i s s i b l e i f , a m o n g o t h e r

r e q u i r e m e n t s , “ t h e s t a te m en t show s th at

the c hil d ha s a t so m e tim e be fo re the m ak ing of the sta te m en t rece iv ed ” th e req ui si te warn in g from a magi st rat e. Se e id. §51.095 (a)( 1)(A ). D elapaz v . Sta te , No. 05-11-01 465-CR, 2013 W L 1896 187, at *1-*2 (T ex . Ap p .- - Da llas May

6, 2013, pet. ref

’ d) (not design ated for publication). A statem ent taken in accordance w ith S ection 51.095 is adm issib le in evidence. Je ffl eyv . Sta te , 38 S
. W
. 3d 84 7, 858 (T ex . App. -- H oust on [ 14th D ist
. ] 200 1, pe t.
re f ’ d )
. “ T h e r e f

o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s m oti on t o supp ress the statem ent.” Id

. The D elapaz

c ourt su cc inc tly

sum m ar iz ed the c ir cu m stanc es in Jeffley :Should be “ Jeffley .” Je ffl y v. Sta te , 38 S. W
. 3d 847 ( T ex . App. -- H oust on 8 [14th Dist.] 2001 , pet r ef’ d). 29 In Je ffr ey v . Sta te , Jef

frey , a j uvenile, w as int er v i ew ed at a police 8 sta tio n a bout am ur de r. 38 S. W
. 3d 847, 852 (T ex . App. -- H oust on [ 14th Dist.] 2001 , pet. ref'd). Jeffr ey gave one wr itten statem ent and four oral st at em en ts be fo re rece iv in g warn in gs pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 51 .09 5. Id

. In h e r f o ur th ora l s ta te m en t, J effr ey in cri m in at edhe rs el f. Id

. A f t e r she m ad e the inc ri m ina tin g st atem en t, a m ag istra te a dm ini ste re d th e w ar nin gs pre sc ri be d by

se ct ion51. 095. Je ff

re y the n pr ovi de d ase co nd writ te n s ta te m en t. Id

. A ft er m ak ing the se co nd w ri tte n st at em en t, an ot he r m ag is tra te is su eda se co nd set of wa rn i n g s . Id

. T he c ourt of appeals concluded th at Jeffr ey's th ird and fourth oral custodi al sta te m en ts w er e ina dm iss ibl e be ca use the y w er e obt ai ne d wit hout a mag is tra te 's warni ng in vi ol at io n o f se ct io n 5 1.0 95
. Id

. a t858
. How ever, the court also concluded th at Jef frey 's second wr itten sta te m en t, a lso the r es ult of ac ust odi al int er

ro ga tio n, w as obt ai ne d in accordance with section 51.095 because Jeffr ey rece ived the req uired warn in g b efo re p ro vi di ng th e st at eme n t
. Id

. T he c ourt of

appe al s co nc lud ed

the tr ia l c ourt di d no t e rr by de ny ing Je ff

re y ' s m oti on to su pp res s t he sec on d wri tt en st at em en t. Id

. D elapaz , 201 3 W L 189 6187 , a t *2
. B

. A ppe lla nt’ s wr itte n state m en t w as tak en in ac co rdan ce wi th Se ct ion 51. 095, and

no a buse o

f di sc re tio n in adm itt ing

the sta te m en t i

s sh ow n. A p p e l l a n tw a s i n c u s t o d y w h e n h e w a s t a k e n t o J u d g e W a r df o r h is
m ag i s t ra t e’s wa rn i n g s an d i n t er v i ew ed . [1 SH 3 5 ] Th e a u d i o re co rd i n g o f A p p el l an t ’s
or al sta te m en ts w as sup pr es se d be ca use the r ec or din g it se lf

did not c om ply w itha
s t at e s t at u t e g o v er n i n g t h e a d mi s s i b i l i t y o f a n au d i o re co rd i n g o f a ju v en i l e’s
cu s t o d i al o ra l s t at emen t s , i .e ., t h a ts u ch a r ec o rd i n g m u s ti n cl u d e t h e mag i s t ra t e’s30

w ar nin g a nd the c hil d’ s w ai ve r of e ac h r igh t bef

or e the sta te m en t. T ex . F am . Co de § 51.095(a)(5)(A ) (W est 2012 ). In this case, Judg e Ward h ad lawf ully adm inistered the sta tut or

y w ar nin gs, but tho se w er e not re co rd ed
. [1 SH 8- 14, 40] T he re fo re , the
au dio r ec or din g w as not

a dm iss ibl e and w as supp re sse d by the tr ia l cour t. [ 2S H 25] L ike w ise , te sti m ony

about Appe llant’ s c ust odi al or al sta te m en ts d ur ing his int er vie w w ithde te ct ive s w as not a dm iss ibl e unde r sta te sta tut es gov er ning th e adm iss ibi lity of th os e or al sta te m en ts, i. e. , tha t c ust odi al or al sta te m en ts are not adm issib le unless re corded. Te x. Fam
. Code § 51.095(a)(5) & (d) (W est 2 0 1 2). Si nc e the audi o r ec or din g of Appe llant’ s st at em en ts w as not m ad e in a cc or da nc e w ith Section 51.095, t h e recording and testim ony about the Appellant’ s custod ial oral sta te m en ts w er e not

a dm iss ibl e an d w er e supp re sse d by the tr ia l c ourt. [ 2S H 25] A ppe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t, how ev er , w as ta ke n stri ct ly by the boo k. Su bse ct ion51. 095( a) (1 ) pr ovi de s th at “ the sta te m en t of a ch ild is adm iss ibl e in e vid en ce in an y

f utu re pr oc ee din g c onc er

nin g th e m at te r ab out w hic h the sta te m en t
wa s given if the statem ent is m ade in wr iting [w hile a chil d is in cust ody of an offic er]
an d: ( A ) t h e s t a t e m e n t s h o w s t h a t t h e c h i l d h a s a t s o m e t i m e be fo re the

m ak ing of

th e st at em en t r ec ei ve d f ro m am ag istra te aw ar

nin g tha t: (i ) the ch ild m ay re m ai n sil en t an d not m ak e an y sta te m en t at a ll an d th at a ny sta te m en t tha t the c hil d m ak es m ay be use d in ev ide nc e ag ai nst

the c hil d;31 (i i) the c hil d ha s the ri ght to hav e an attor ne y pr es en t t o a dvi se the ch ild e ith er pr ior to an y que sti oni ng o r dur ing the que sti oni ng; (i ii) if the c hil d is una

ble to em plo y an at tor

ne y , the c hil d ha s th e ri ght to ha ve a n attorne y

appoi nte d to c ouns el w iththe c hil d b e f o r e o r du r i n g a n y i n t e rv i e w s wi t h p e a c e o f f i c e r s o r a t t o rn e ys re pr es en tin g th e sta te ; and (iv) the child has the right to term inate the interview a t any tim e; (B ) an d: (i ) the sta te m en t m

ust be sig ne d in

the pr es en ce of

am ag istra te by the child w ith no law enforcem ent officer or prosecuting attorney present, except that a m agistrate m ay require a bail i ff o r a law en fo rc em en t of

fi ce r if aba ili ff is not a va ila ble to be pr es en t i f the m agistrate determ ines that the presence of the bailiff or law en fo rc em en t of

fi cer i s nece ssary

f or the pe rs ona l sa fe ty

of the m ag istra te or

oth er co urt pe rs onne l, pr ovi de d th at the ba ili ff

or law enforcem ent officer

m ay not carry a w eapon in the presence of the c hil d; and (i i) the m ag istra te m

ust be f ully co nvi nc ed

tha t the c hil d unde rs ta nds the na tur e an d co nte nts of the sta te m en t and tha t the ch ild is sig nin g th e sa m e vol unt ar ily , an d if a sta te m en t is t ak en , the m ag istra te m

ust sig n aw ri tte n st at em en t ve ri fy ing the fo re goi ng r equis ite s have be enm et ; (C ) the c hil d kn ow ing ly , int el lig en tly , a nd v ol un tar ily w ai ve s th es e ri ght s be fo re a nd d

ur ing the m ak ing of th e sta te m en t and s ign s th e sta te m en t i n th e pr es en ce of am ag istra te ; and (D ) the m ag istrat e ce rt if

ie s th at the m ag istra te ha s e xa m ine d th e ch ild i n d e p e n d e n to f

an y l a w e n f

o r c e men t o f

f i c e r o r p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o rn e y, ex ce pt a s r equir ed

to en sur e the pe rs ona l sa fe ty of the m ag istr at e or oth er c ourt pe rs onne l, a nd has de te rm ine d th at the c hil d un de rs ta nds the n a tu r e a n dc o n t e n t s o f

t h e s t a t e me n t a n dh a s kn o w i n g l y, i n t e l l i g e n t l y, an d vo lun ta ri ly

w ai ve d th es e ri ght s.32

Te x. Fam . C ode § 51.095 (a)( 1) (W est 2012 ). He re, Judg e Ward t estified that she wa s authorized by the county to adm inister
m agistrate w arnings to juveniles sus pected of cr im es. [1SH 7] Judg e W ard testified tha t sh e m et

a nd t al ke d w ithAppellan t i n he r of fi ce , w hic h “ is d ir ec tly

a cr oss f ro m
a co nfere nc e ro om

a nd the pol ic e of

fi ce rs w er e in the c onf

er en ce r oom . ” [ 1S H 10] T he se a re as a re de sig na te d by the Juve nil e Bo ar d of

F ort B en d C ounty

a s aj uve nil e processing lo cation. [ 1SH18-19] Appellant wa s in the custody of t he police, bu t wa s
n o th an d cu ff

ed an dco u l dl ea v e h ero ff i ce at an y t i m e. [1 SH 1 1 ] Judg e W ard testified that she h ad no reason t o ask Appellant whether he had been drinkin g or about any drug activity because “ I ob served his attitud e and the way he was t o m e an d i t was ve ry pl eas an t s o I h adno r eas on to qu es ti on ot he rwis e.” [1 SH 9] Jud ge W ar d te sti fi ed tha t sh e co nve rs ed

w ithAppe llant i n E ngl ish , a nd A ppe llant a

ppe ar ed to ha ve no d if

fi cu lty in co m m uni ca tin g w ith he r. [1 SH 21] Jud ge W ar d be lie ve d th at

Appe llant w as okay

to pr oc ee d. [ 1S H 9] Judg e W ard testified that she used a j uvenile s t at em ent form that conform ed to the r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion51. 095, T ex as F am i ly Co de , c ont ai nin g th e “ m ag istra te j uve nil e w ar

nin g, ” the j uve nil e sta te m en t f orm , a nd “ the m ag istra te j uv enile
ve ri fi ca tio n. ” [ 1S H 15- 16, 14RRS ta te ’ s E x 25 ] Ju dge W ar d be ga n th e w ar nin g pr oc es s a t 9: 35 a
. m . [ 1S H 17] Jud ge W ar d adm oni she d App el la nt tha t he w as be ing ch ar ge d w ithA ggr av at ed Ro bbe ry , af

irst de gr ee off

en se , a nd tha t i t w as ase ri ous33

of fe nse . [ 1S H 19] Ju dge W ar d te sti fi ed

tha t sh e ga ve Appe llant the f our r equir ed w ar nin gs, ch ec kin g of

f ea cha s sh e re ad

it , a nd h av ing Appe llant initia l e ac h to ind ic at e he unde rs too d. [ 1 S H 2 0
- 2 1 ] J u d g e W a r dt e s t i f i e d , “ A f t e r I g a v e h i m

h i s m a g i s t r a te
w ar nin g, I advis ed him tha t if h e w ish ed to ta lke d [ sic ] to the pol ic e of fi ce rs , he c oul d do s o. ” [1 SH 11- 12] A ppe llant indi ca te d that he w oul d li ke to ta lk t o th em a nd w en t to the conference room

at about 9:42 a. m . [1SH 12, 25] Judge W ard re m ained in her office w orking and heard n o raised d isturbances or raised voices from the conference
ro om . [ 1S H 12, 24- 25] A p p el l an tt al k ed wi t h t h e o ff i ce rs , t h en wa s b ro u g h tb ac kt o J u d g e Wa rd ’s office. [1SH 13] “ I as k ed him if that w as his statem ent, y es, and that he gave that sta te m en t vo lun ta ry

[ sic ] a nd he sa id h e did
. ” [ 1S H 14] Jud ge W ar d te sti fi ed tha t sh e
re ad Appe llant h is sta te m en t, the y ta lke d for a fe w m inu te s, a nd Appe llant s ign ed the sta te m en t. [ 1S H 26] Jud ge W ar d te sti fi ed tha t Appe llant h ad

no c ha nge s, c or

re ct ion s, alterations, or deletions to the statem ent as read to him
. [1SH 26] Judge W ard drew

“ x’ s” thro ug h seve ra l bl an k sp ac es a nd a ske d Appe llant t o in iti al the m , “ so n o on e el se c oul d a dd o r ta ke a w ay . ” [ 1S H 26] A ft er r ev ie w ing Appe llant’ s sta te m en t w ith him , Jud ge W ar d si gne d a nd n ote d th e tim e as 11: 55 a
. m . [ 1S H 25- 26] The tr ial court fo u n d that the wr itten statem ent com plied with Fam ily

Code, Se ct ion51. 095, a nd “ spe ci fi ca lly tha t the de fe ndant pr ior to an d dur ing the m ak ing34

of the wr itten statem ent knowingl y , intelligently and volu ntarily

wa ived the rights set out in the w ar

nin g pr es cr ibe d by

S ubse ct ionA of

S ec tio n 2 o f A rt ic le 38. 22 .
. . A nd tho se a re the w ar

nin gs a lso c ont ai ne d onthe doc um en t i tse lf
. ” [ 2S H 26] A ppe llant’ s w ri tte n st at em en t w as ta ke n inc om pli an ce w ithSect io n 51. 095,
an dth er ef

o re , t h e t ri al co u r t d i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n i n d en yin g Ap p el l an t ’s
m oti on t o su

ppr es s and a dm itt ing the sta te m en t. P oin t of E rr or Two sh oul d be
ove rr ule d. Ap pellant’ s Point of Error Thre e T he e vid en ce is insuf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t Appe llant’ s c onvi ct ionf or ag gr av at ed

r obbe ry in ca use num be r 12- D CR -6 1921
. [ Br

a t 2, 31] State ’s A nsw er A ny r at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d f

ind be y on d a rea sona

ble doubt the elem ent of Appellant’ s inten t to com m it theft in approaching Mr. G ar za ’ s ve hic le w ithagun .

Ar gum ent and A uth orities Inhis thi rd poi nt of er

ro r, A ppe llant as se rt s tha t the e vid en ce is ins uf fi ci en t t o prove Appellant’ s intent to com m it robbery

because “ there w as no dialog ue” betwe en A ppe llant and the vi ct im , Ma sa ri o G ar za , a nd M r. G ar za “ as sum ed

tha t this pe rs on
w as goi ng t o r ob h im
. ” [ Br a t 33 -3 4] Appe llant arg ue s, “ T he j ur y w as put in a posit ion to speculate and guess at what Appellant’s conduct and intent was.” [Br at35

34] Appellant forgets Mr. Garza’ s testim ony that when he saw Appellant approach his ve hic le w ithagun , “ I tho ught , y ou know , thi s is no g ood he re be ca use he ’ s go ing to try to rob m e or som ething, y ou kn ow. I w asn’ t goin g to wait ar ound and see w hat he wa s goin g to do .” [6RR18, em phasis add ed] Appellant also forgets th at his trial inc lud ed e vid en ce tha t ab out

aha lf hou r af te r shoo tin g M r. G ar za , Appe llant ap pr oa ch ed Mr
. E sc obar w hil e he w as ha rd at w ork cl eanin g up a sto re pa rk ing lot
an d de m an de d $1 50 a t gu npoi nt. [5 RR 7, 18, 21] T ha t Appe llant w as in the c our se of c om m itt ing the ft , a nd Ap pe llant’ s inte nt to obta in pro pe rty fr om Mr
. G ar za c oul d be rea sonablyinferr ed from his dem and for m oney from Mr. Esc obar under sim ilar ci rcu m st an ces . See Te x. R. Evid. 404(b). A. Stan dard

of Rev iew The inquiry

on review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sup port a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n i s w h e t h e r , a f t e r v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n ali ght m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t, an y ra tio na l tr ie r of fa ct c oul d ha ve f

ound th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Ja ck son v. V irg ini a , 443 U
. S. 30 7, 318 –19 (1 979) ; R oss v . Sta te , 133 S
. W
. 3d 618, 620 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004 ). The sam e standard of reviewapplies to cas es in vo lv in g d ire ctor c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce. B urde n v . Sta te , 55 S.W .3d 60 8, 6 13 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 01 ). P ow el l v

. Sta te , 194 S. W .3d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006). Inac ir cu m stantial -evide nc e ca se , it is unne ce ssary

f or e ve ry f ac t t o poi nt dir ec tly an d inde pe nde ntl y to the gui lt of

the a cc use d; r athe r, it

is en oughif the fi ndi ng of guil t is warr an te d by the cum ula tiv e fo rc e of

a ll36

the inc ri m ina tin g ev ide nc e. Jo hnson v

. Sta te , 871 S
. W
. 2d 1 83, 186 (T ex . Cr im
. App. 199 3). Si m ilarl y , ar ev ie w ing c ourt i s pe rm itt ed to co nsi de r al l e vid en ce in the tr ia l- co urt r ec or d, w he the r adm iss ibl e or ina dm iss ibl e, whe n m ak ing a le ga l- suff ic ie nc y de te rm in at io n. D ew be rry v. Sta te , 4 S .W .3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999). P ow el l , 194 S
. W
. 3d a t 50 7. A pe rs on co m

m its ag gr av at ed

r obbe ry , af

ir st d eg re e fe lon y , if

in the c our se of
co m m itt ing the ft

a nd w ithint en t t o ob ta in o r m ai nta in c ontro l of pr ope rty he int en tio na lly

or kno w ing ly

thr ea te ns or pl aces a nothe r in f ear of im m ine nt b odi ly inj ur y or de ath a nd the pe rs on u se s or e xhi bit s ade ad ly

w ea pon or the victim

is 65 y ears of a ge or old er . T ex . P en . Co de §§ 2 9. 02( a) (2 ); 29. 03( a) (2 ) & ( 3) (A ) (W es t 2012 ). A pe rs on c om

m its the ft if the pe rs on a

ppr op ria te s prop er

ty w ithint en t t o de pr ive the ow ne r of

pr ope rt y w ith out the ow ne r’ s ef

fe ct ive co nse nt. T ex . P en . Co de §§ 2 9. 02( a) , 31. 03( a) ( W es t 20 12) . “ ‘ Inthe c our se of c om m itt ing the ft ’ m eans
co nduc t tha t oc cu rs in ana tte m pt t o c om m it, dur ing the c om

m iss ion , or

in im m ed ia te fl igh t a ft er

the a tte m

pt o r co m m iss io n of thef

t. ” T ex . P en . Co de § 29
. 01( 1) ( W es t 2012 ). T he ind ic tm en t tra ck ed th e st at ut es a nd i nc lud ed tw o para gr ap hs: ( 1) f

or use of a deadly we apon, and (2) for the victim , Ma sario Garza, being a person 65 y ears
o f a g e o r o l d er . [C R- 3 3 6 at 1 2 ] T he appl ic at ionpa ra gr ap h of the j ur y c ha rg e tr ac ke d th e ind ic tm en t and g av e the j ur y the opt ionto fi nd Appe llant n ot g uil ty of a ggrava te d r obbe ry , but

gui lty of37

ag gr av at ed

a ssa ult : N ow , b e a r i n g i n m i n d t h e f o r e g o i n g i n s t r

u c t i o n s , i f y o u f

i n d f r o m the ev ide nc e bey ond a re as ona ble doub t tha t on or

about January 19, 201 2, in F ort B en d C ounty , T ex as , the D ef en da nt, D am io n Ge ntr

y , a ct ing al one or a s apa rty , did

the n and the re w hil e in the co ur se of c om m itt ing the ft of pr ope rty a nd w ithint en t t o ob ta in o r m ai ntain c ontro l of the property , intent i o nally

or knowinglythreaten or place Marsar io Gar za in f ear of im m in en t bodil y

inj ur y or de ath, a nd y ou a lso f

ind tha t sa id D ef en da nt d id the n an d the re use or ex hib it a de ad ly w ea pon, to w it: a fi re ar m , O R tha t M ar sa ri o G ar za is a pe rs on s ixty -f

ive y ears of

a ge or older, y ou will find the Def endant “ Guilty ” of A ggravated Robbery as ch ar ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. U nle ss y ou s o f

ind f ro m the ev ide nc e be y ond a re as ona ble doub t, or

if y ou h av e a re as ona

ble doub t the re of

, y ou w ill a cquit

the de fe ndant and say by y our verdict “ not Guilty ,” and y ou will n ext consider the lesserinc lud ed of fe nse of A ggr av at ed

A ssa ult
. [C R- 336 at

315 ] B

. Th e fin din g of

gui lt in t

he rob be ryof M

arsari o G arz a is wa rra nte d bythe c um ula tiv e for ce of all the inc rim in at ing evidence. Mr. Garza testified that when h e saw the gun, he thoug ht he was going to get
ro bbe d, ste ppe d on the ga s, an d too k of f. [6 RR 18] Mr
. G ar za

“ w as n’ t go ing to w ai t
ar o u n dan ds ee wh at [A p p el l an t ] was g o i n g t o d o .” [6 RR 1 8 ] Again, “ ‘ [i] n the course of com m itting theft’ m eans conduct that occurs in an at te m pt t o c om m it, dur ing the of

c om m iss ion , or in im

m ed ia te fl igh t af

te r the a tte m

pt
or com m issio n of theft.” T ex. P en. C ode § 29.01(1). T he pr ose cu tor

c or re ct ly a rg ue d, “ D oe s ou r law sa y y ou shou ld w ai t aro und to38

be r obbe d a nd t he n on ly

y ou c anbe c ha nge d [ sic ] w itha ggr av at ed r obbe ry ? N o, it doe sn’ t .
. . T he ve ry

f ir st d ef ini tio n un de r ro m annum er al I , it quo te s, “ in the c our se of com m itt i n g t h ef

t .” Means conduct that was engaged in during an attem pt, an at te m pt t o c om m it,
. . . S o an att em

pt to com m it is e noug h.
. . . Y ou d on’ t have to w ai t
ar ound to ge t r obbe d. ” [ 8R R1 1- 12] Fu rthe r, Appe llant ’s in te nt t o c om m it the ft is show n by

his sim ilar ac t of ge tti ng o ut o f the pa sse nge r sid e of the tr uc k, ap pr oa ch ing Mr
. E sc obar w ith a gun,
an d de m an din g $1 50 j ust a ha lf an hour late r. [ 5R R1 8] A ny

r ea sona ble j ur or c oul d drawan infere nce fr om

Appellant’ s frustrated ef fort to obtain m oney in r obbi ng Mr. G ar za , w ho w as dr ivi ng his ca r an d sped of f, tha t Ap pe lla

nt w oul d pi ck

on a pe rs on, who w as on foot and coul d not sp eed off. A nd any re asonable juror could draw an inf er en ce tha t the sho oti ng a t M r. G ar za on H igh w ay 90 w as lin ke d to the sho oti ng at Mr
. E sc obar in R ose nbe rg , a nd tha t bo th a ggr av at ed r obbe ri es w er e co m

m itt ed in th e sa m e cri m in al tra ns act io n t o t hi ev e. Whe n a ll the e vid en ce is co nsi de re d, “ the f ind ing of gui lt is w ar

rante d by the
cum ulative force of all the incrim inating evidence.” P ow el l , 194 S
. W
. 3d a t 50 7. A ny
ra tio na l tri er

of f ac t c oul d f

ind be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t A ppe llant w as in the
course of com

m itting theft w hen he approached sixty -eight-y ear- old Marsario Garza. Po int of E rr or T hr ee sho uld

be ove rr ule d.39 PR AY ER T he S ta te pr ay s th at

the j udgm en t of

the tr ia l c ourt be a ff

irm ed
. John He aley , Jr
. SB O T # 09 3283 00 District A tto rn ey, 2 6 8 thJu d i ci al District Fort Bend County , T exas /s/ G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll Assistant District A ttorney SB O T # 11 3954 00 Fort Bend County , T exas 301 Ja ck son Stre et , Ro om 101 Ri ch m ond, T ex as 774 69 (2 81) 341 -4 460 / ( 281) 238 -3 340 (f ax ) G a i l
. M c C o n

n e l l @ f or tbe ndc ount

y tx. gov
CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE I here by certify that the State’ s Appellate Br ief, in total t h ro u g h t h e p ray er, co nta ins 11, 056 w or ds a s c ount ed by W or dP er fe ct

6X , w hic h is le ss tha n th e 15, 000 word lim it for a brie f. /s/ G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll
CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE I he re by c er tif y tha t a copy of the St at e' s appe lla te br ie f w as se rv ed by e -m ai l or the c as e fi lin g m an ag er on July 10, 201 5, on M r. Mi ch ae l D iaz, Att or ne y f or A ppe llant. /s/ G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll G ai l K ikaw a Mc Co nne ll