NO. 07-07 -002 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B AU GU ST 14, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DO NN YKEV IN D AVIS , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO. 53, 837 -E; HON. ABE LOP EZ, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Don n y K e v i n D a v i s a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n fo r b u rg l a r i z i n g a h a b i t a t i o n v ia four is sues . He cont ends 1) the tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to hol d a h ear ing on h is moti on for new tr ial , 2) the tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to inc lud e an acc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti on i n the charg e, 3) he recei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of c o u n sel bec ause his co unsel fail ed to re q uestan a cc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti on, a nd 4) the acc ompli ce w it ness tes ti mony w as2

not s uff ic ien tl y

co rroborated. W e address the fourth is sue firs t for itai ds in the d is posi ti on of the ot hers, and, upon do ing so , affirm the j udg ment. Cor ro bor ati on of Ac com plice Tes ti

m ony C or ro borati ng ev ide nce need on ly tend to conne ct the acc used to t he offense, not est abl is h g uil t beyond a re asona ble doubt
. Mc Duf f v . St ate, 9 3 9 S
. W
. 2 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 3 (T e x. Crim. App
. 199 7). Moreover, the re is no ex act r ule as to the am oun t of e vid e n c e t h a tis re q uired for cor ro borati on. Dowth itt v . St ate, 931 S.W .2d 244 , 249 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96). Ins tead, eac h c ase m u stb e decide d upon it s o w n facts and ci rc umstan ces . Martinez v. State, 163 S. W .3d 9 2, 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2005, no pet .)
. The foll ow ing non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce is found in the re cord before us. Ap pel lan t had a his tor

y of sol ic it ing money from ind iv idu als , inc lud ing the burg lar y v icti m, at the s it e of the burg lar

y . Immediat ely

pri or to the burg lar

y , appell ant indi cat ed that s omeone w ho li ve d a tt h e a p a rt m e n tc o m p le x ( o t h e r t h a n t h e e ve n t u a l b u rg la ry vi c t im ) o we d h im m o n e y. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant was seen by the burg lar

y v icti m lo oki ng i nto v ar iou s a partm ent w ind ow s w it hin tw enty -four hours o f the time the b urg lar y oc cur re d. He als o w ent t o the apa rtme nt com plex shortly before the burglary

to collect mone y allegedly owed to him . He w as not o nly

there w hen t he burg lar y v icti m le ft for wor k b ut al so at or arou nd th e ti me of the b urg lar

y . Next, of the v ar iou s ite ms stol en, o ne c onsi ste d of a bl ack , t hin Pl ay Stat ion II. Sh ortl y

after the burg lar

y , appell ant paw ned, at a near by paw nbroker , a Pl ay Stat ion II ma t c h i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o n e s t o l e n . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n ta d mi t t e d h e w a s i n the company

of the a cc ompli ce before and after the b urg lar y ; i n fact, both w ere c aptured tog ether on v ide o w hen t he i tem w as paw ned.3

W hile the accuse d’s presen ce at th e crime scen e is by itself insuf f icient to conn ect him to t he c ri me, presenc e c oupl ed w it h oth er ci rc umstan ces m ay

be enoug h. Trevino v. State, 991 S.W .2d 849 , 851 -52 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9). Here, w e ha v e no t only presence at the scene and w it h the ac compl ic e butal so moti v e ( i. e. appel lan t’ s re peated q uestfor money from t hose at t he apar tment compl ex ), oppor tuni ty ( pre se n ce t hroug hout the per ti nent ti mes) , s uspi ci ous act iv ity sh ortl y before the burg lar

y ( loo ki ng i nto a par

tment w ind ow s) , pos ses si on of an i tem matc hin g t h e descr ipt ion of one t hat was sto len , int eract ion betw een app ell ant a nd th e ac compl ic e, an d appel lan t’ s p aw ning the it em for m o n e y. T h e s e fa c t s a re m o re t h a n su f f ic ie n tt o t e n d t o co n n e c ta p p e ll a n tt o t h e b u rg la ry. See Gi ll v. Sta te , 873 S. W .2d 4 5, 48 -4 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ( findi ng the nonacc ompli ce ev ide nce suffici ent c or ro borati on w hen it show ed 1) that the compl ain ant was robb ed by a perso n or p erson s, 2) the d efend anthad the op portu nity to com mit th e robb ery becau se he l iv ed nearby , 3) after the ro bber

y , t he defendant act ed s ecreti v ely , 4) the defendant w as in the p re senc e of the acc om p lic e a fte r the t heft, and 5) the defendant joi ntl y pos ses sed it ems mat chi ng thos e s tol en)
. The fact that the compl ain ant did not a t trial positively

ident if y the pa w ne d P la ys tatio n de v ice as his ow n do es no t me an th e jury coul d not infer under thes e facts that itw as the s ame. See Watson v. State, 728 S. W .2d 109, 111- 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 1987, no pet.)(findi ng suff ic ien t c or ro borati on th ev en th oug h no one testi fied that the dres ser in appell ant’ s poss ess ion after the theft w as the o ne s tol en)
. Mo re ov er , t he tw o author it ies reli ed upon by appel lan t are i nappos it e. In Ex par te Zepe da , 819 S.W .2d 8 74 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991), the non- acc ompli ce tes ti mony i ll ust ra ted4

that Zepe da w as “n ear” the murder sc ene w it h a g ro up of peopl e tha t di d noti ncl ude t he dece den t, the dece den t w as sho t w ith a rifle , and Zepe da lat er tried to sell a rifle to a third p a rt y. T h e co n n e c t i o n be twe e n th e rif le an d th e m u rd e r was e st a b lis h e d on ly th ro u gh acc ompli ce tes ti mony

w hic h c oul d not be cons ide re d. M oreov er , not hin g di sc uss ed i n the opi nio n s ug g est ed th at t he r ifle w as of the s ame make, model or cal ibe r as that used in the kil lin g. T h e Co u rt o f Crim in a l Ap p e a ls fo u n d th e se cir cu m st a n ce s t o be le ss th a n en o u gh to conne ct appel lan t to t he murder
. Si mil ar ly , t he non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce in How ard v. State , 972 S.W .2d 121 (T e x. A p p . –A u stin 19 98, no pe t.) w as foun d w ant ing becau se it si mply pl aced Howard i n the room w herein dr ug s w ere found to be hid den i n a l ig ht fixture. W it hout the a cc ompli ce tes ti mony noth ing el se li nked him to t hose dr ug s. Li ke both How ard and Zepe da , here w e hav e non-ac compl ic e ev ide nce pla ci ng appel lan t nea r the cr ime sc ene before the cr ime occ ur re d. Y et, unl ik e tho se tw o c ases , w e a lso hav e nonacc ompli ce tes ti mony il lus trati ng moti v e ( i. e. appell ant’ s q uestfor m oney ), preparati on ( i. e. appel lan t’ s l ooki ng i n w ind ow s of v ar iou s a par

tments ), appel lan t’ s p re senc e w it h the accom plice be fore an d after the burglary , app ellant ’s possessio n of an item actua lly m a t c h in g t h e d e s c ri p t io n o f s o m e t h in g s t o le n f ro m t h e a p a rt m e n ts o o n a f t e r t h e b u rg la ry, and app ellant ’s paw ning of the item in ex chan ge fo r mon ey. T hese add itiona l fa ctors cann ot be ig nore d a n d suf f ice to carry

the situa tion b efore us over the thre shold w hich c o u l d n o tb e c l e a re d i n Ho ward and Zepe da. Accordingly , w e overrule appe llant’s c o m p la in tt h a tt h e n o n -a c c o m p li c e e vid e n c e wa s in s u f f ic ie n tt o c o n n e c th im t o t h e b u rg la ry. Fai lur e to Pr ovi de Ac com

plice Ins tr

uct ionor R eques t I t Next, appe llant asse rts that the tr ial court erred in om itting an accom plice w itness ins tr uct ion from i ts charg e and that his tr ial co unsel w as ine ffect iv e bec aus e h e di d not request it. W e overrule the con ten tions.5

W e ac know led g e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d i n o mi t t i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n . I t h a d an obl ig ati on to prov ide i t i rrespecti v e of any r eq uest s b y

co unsel
. Howar

d v . St ate , 972 S.W .2d a t 126
. Si mil ar ly , a t le a st one c our t found i t di ff ic ultto conc eiv e of a s it uati on w herein reason abl y

co mpetent couns el coul d l e git imat ely foreg o req uest ing su ch an ins tr uctio n as par

t of so me tr ial st ra teg y . See i d. Y et, th is ty pe o f

error by the trial court or def ic ien cy

byco unsel does not ips o fac to w ar ra nt re v ersal
. It sti ll must be show n tha t har m resul ted f ro m t h e w ro ng . Id. ; Bone v . St ate , 77 S.W .3d 8 28, 8 33 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( re q uir ing proof of both defic ien t performanc e and preju dic e before one can suc ceed upon a cl aim of ineffectiv e as si sta nce)
. Fur ther more, the harm emanati ng from t he tr ial cour t’ s o mis si on must be eg re g iou s d ue to co unsel ’s fail ure to re q uestan i nst ru cti on, Howar d v . St ate , 972 S.W .2d at 126-27 , w hile tha t arising f rom th e de f icient pe rforma nce mu st be of

a quantu m suf

f icient to create a reason able proba bility tha t the v erdict w ould hav e di ffered had the o mis si on notoc cur re d. Bone v . St ate, 77 S. W .3d a t 833
. As pre viously add ressed , suf f icient no n-acco mp lice ev iden ce existed to con nect appel lan t t o the burg lar y . Indeed, it alo ne coul d hav e been enoug h to w ar ra nt c onv icti on. One n eed onl y

read Poncio v. State , 185 S.W .3d 9 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) to conc lud e thi s. There, ou r Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls hel d tha t t he recentpos ses si on of st ole n proper ty is enoug h to suppo rt the c onv icti on of the poss ess or for b urg lar

y . Id. at 904- 05. Here, w e hav e tha t and more. Ag ai n, th e rec ord c on ta i ne d ev i de nc e no t on l y pl ac i ng hi m at th e s c en e but also re v eal ing hi s p otent ia l moti v e, prepar ing to act , recent ly pos ses si ng a P lay Stat ion matc hin g6

the d esc ri pti on of the sto len Pl aySt a ti o n , hoc ki ng the Pl ay Stat ion , and bei ng i n the presenc e of anothe r of the th iev es before a nd after the burg lar

y . W hil e no one direct ly tes ti fied that the Pl ay Stat ion w hic h appel lan t paw ned w as the same one that w as stol en, w e nonethel ess hav e c ircums tanti al ev ide nce suffici ent t o fil l the v oid
. It cons is ted o f the matchi ng desc ri pti ons of t he it em sto len and the it em paw ned, the close geographic proximity betw een the pa w n sho p an d the burglary s cene , the close temporal prox imi ty

betw een t he ti me of the bu rg lar y and the t ime that appel lan t paw ned the item, app ellant ’s ef fort to spy into windows, an d his ongoing search for f und s. Th ese ind ici a we re su ff ic ien t t o enabl e one to c oncl ude beyond reason abl e doubtthatthe it em paw ned w as the i tem s tol en. So, w hil e the tes ti mony

from t he acc ompli ce w it ness w as infor mati v e and ci ted o ften by the Stat e, it w as not neces sar il y needed to sec ure conv icti on. And, becau se itw as not, the factfinder

co uld hav e i g nored i t in totoand st il l re ndered th e v erdict i t di d. And, becau se itco uld hav e done that, w e are unable to say that the tri al cour

t’ s o mis si on c aused eg re g iou s h ar m or

a re asona ble probabi li ty ex is ted that the o utc ome w oul d hav e di ffered had t he i nst ru cti on been g iv en. In s hor t, the e rrors d o notw ar ra nt rev ersal
. Mo ti on fo r New T

ri al Finally , app ellantbelieves the trial co urt erred in failing to co nvene a hea ring on h is moti on fo r n e w tr ial
. El emental to the c ontent ion are the omi tted acc ompli ce ins tr uct ion and trial counse l’s af

f idavit w here in he indicat ed tha t his failure to request it w as no t part of anytr ial st ra teg y . An d, be caus e of tr ial co unsel ’s admi ss ion , a hear ing al leg edl y w as w ar ra nted. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue.7

W hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to condu ct an ev ide nti a ry h e a ri ng depend s upon w hether itabus ed i ts dis creti on. W all ace v. State, 10 6 S. W .3 d 10 3, 1 08 ( Tex
. C r i m. App . 200 3). Th at o c c u rs when its de cision falls outsid e the z one of reason able dis ag re emen t. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , 810 S.W .2d 372 , 391 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). Fur ther more, one maybe enti tl ed to suc h a h ear ing onl y w hen t he moti on and suppo rt ing aff ida v it s rais e matt ers n ot deter minabl e from the ex is ti ng record and that coul d ent it le the mov ant t o reli ef. Rozell v. Sta te, 176 S.W .3d 228 , 230 (Te x . Crim. App
. 200 5). W ith the se ru les i n mi nd, we retur n to the e v ide nce of rec ord and our prev iou s d is cus si on of i t. Des pit e c ounse l’ s a dmis si on, t he tri al cour t c oul d hav e s impl y

rev iew ed th e ex is ti ng re cord and re asona bly

co ncl uded t hat t he i nst ru cti on woul d nothav e resul ted i n a d ifferent outc ome. Indeed, w e ac know led g ed as much in our di sc uss ion of the p ri or i ss u e s. I n shor t, itco uld hav e done much as w e did and si mply deci ded that ev en if there w as er ro r t h e re e xis t e d li t t le p ro b a b il it y t h a tita f fe c t e d t h e ju ry’ s d e c is io n . A n d , b e c a u s e it c o u ld h a ve so deci ded, w e c annot say thatit abused it s dis creti on in optin g not to hold a hear ing on the mot ion
. Al l is sues hav ing been ov er ru led , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice
Do not p ubl is h.