Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00378-CR

Bobby MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR13098

Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 1, 2023

AFFIRMED

A jury convicted Bobby Martinez of stalking. After Martinez plead true to enhancement 

based on two prior convictions, the trial court sentenced Martinez to 25 years confinement. On 

appeal, Martinez asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the verdict. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Martinez was married to Sabrina Palafos. Palafos worked with complainant Deborah 

Ramirez at a Sonic restaurant in San Antonio, Texas. At that time, Ramirez was in a romantic 

relationship with Jermaine Garcia. Ramirez and Garcia lived together with their five children. 
04-21-00378-CR

- 2 -

Martinez (1) knew Ramirez and Garcia and (2) attended their child’s sweet sixteen and 

quinceañera. Sometime in May, June, or July 2019, Palafos broke up with Martinez. Shortly 

thereafter, Martinez began accusing Ramirez, Garcia, and A.J. Guzman (the owner of the Sonic 

location) of having an affair with Palafos.

According to Ramirez, on July 9, 2019, Martinez “was trying to get in the [Sonic] store to 

see if [Palafos] was there. He drove around the lot. He stopped on the drive-thru lane, got off and 

was trying to open the door, but we had already locked it.” Ramirez testified she “was scared of 

him . . . Because he has threatened me so many times. He said he would shoot me, he would kill 

me.” Martinez showed up again later in the day and, according to Ramirez, “tried to get into the 

store again and that time we didn’t let him in, so he started throwing stuff at my car. He was 

throwing water bottles, trash, just stuff that was in his car.”

On that day, Martinez also repeatedly called Sonic, as reflected on caller ID. Ramirez 

answered his first call, and Martinez hung up. In response to Martinez’s actions, Ramirez called 

the police. Garcia also went to Sonic because Ramirez was scared to be at work by herself; he 

testified that on that day Martinez threatened to shoot him twice and, after the second threat, threw 

a water bottle at him.

Although Martinez had left Sonic by the time police arrived, Officer Melissa Colunga 

spoke with Martinez after he again called the Sonic. According to Colunga, Martinez “kept going 

on about his wife cheating on him and were threatening him by keeping him away from the store, 

and he had the right to be there because that’s his wife, and he can go up there whenever he wanted. 

He just kept going on and on about that. And he mentioned something about her having a 

relationship with a couple of co-workers. It was a male and a female.” Martinez repeatedly talked 
04-21-00378-CR

- 3 -

over Colunga during the call. After explaining criminal trespass to Martinez, Colunga issued a 

criminal trespass warning to Martinez over the phone.

Garcia testified that on July 10, 2019, Martinez drove by his home “in the dark with the 

lights off . . . And once he got past my house, like closer to the corner of the street . . . he took a 

left and he smashed on the gas. He took off quick, and then the lights came on.” Notably, Ramirez’s 

home is located on a street with dead ends on both sides. Ramirez testified that on July 10, Martinez 

drove by her home twice and the “second time he passed it looked like he was pointing something 

at me . . . It looked like he had something over his hand and he was pointing something at me.” 

Ramirez could not identify the object in Martinez’s hand but perceived it as a threat.

On July 21, 2019, Martinez ignored Colunga’s criminal trespass warning and again went

to the Sonic. This time, Martinez entered the Sonic. Security footage showed Martinez inside the 

Sonic pointing at Ramirez. Ramirez testified Martinez said she “better not be effing lying to him 

that she was there—that Sabrina was there.” After Martinez and Palafos broke up, Ramirez would 

answer calls Martinez placed to Sonic and tell him that Palafos was not there even when she was 

there. Later that night, Martinez drove by Ramirez’s home and “just drives by, cussing me out and 

speeds off.” Officer Art Ramirez (no relation to the complainant) responded to a call the night of 

July 21, 2019, and testified Ramirez told him that Martinez “had shown up to her house, drove up 

there, yelled obscenities and threatened to kill her . . . [and later] did it another time, where he 

threatened to shoot her . . .”

On another occasion, Martinez entered Sonic and, according to Ramirez, “he started 

flipping the red [food] trays everywhere. He would just walk up to me or to Sabrina [Palafos] and 

started yelling, cussing us out, just throwing stuff around. He would throw a coat hanger around

. . . He was saying we were going to get what we deserved.” Ramirez estimated that during this 
04-21-00378-CR

- 4 -

short period, Martinez went to the Sonic around thirty times and drove by her home twenty to 

twenty-five times; she further testified:

There was times where he would drive by, go real slow, look at me, 

cuss me out. Tell me F you B, I'm going to kill you, I’m going to 

shoot you. There was times when he just drove by. If we weren’t 

sitting outside, he would make sure that we knew he was passing by. 

He had really loud music on.

One of the times he drove by and stopped right next to my house 

and got off, I don’t know what he did, and then got back in his car. 

It was multiple times when he did the same thing.

Q. Okay. Would he say anything when he drove by?

A. Yeah, it was different stuff all the time. He was going to shoot 

me. He was going to kill me. He was going to have somebody beat 

me up. His sister, he was going to have his sister come find me.

Martinez also sent at least nineteen complaint emails to Sonic’s corporate office. In a July 

12, 2019 email admitted into evidence, Martinez wrote:

Aj Guzman um I nvr realy got to meet him but the story my wife 

presented to me waz he he liked yunger females n that his father was 

some type tycoon n da company one day he would be manage as 

well Mr Aj lookd mad as my wife inform2ed me that .the reason 

Megan another employee had left sonic.was because he was hitn on 

her. I told my wife if he messes wth u let me kno.me n ms debras 

husband spoke n he told me at one point he saw him the same way 

but that he could b wrg

And that wasone reason that mr Aj had to leave a store in the valley 

now Ms Ramirez Debra has her daughter werkn therr n my wife has 

hers there aswel as her bestfrd now im Not sure if that’s ok but I 

could see wer That might set sum type of favortisum or confusion. 

The way i found out about this affair I snoopd n found m raj I blive 

askn for my address but usen a dummy numbyer

I saw tons n tons of it PROOF

So Ms SABINA & N IM GUESN MY AJ hakd my acc started erasn 

all my pic all the pic i was going to presnt to u . I do still hav lots of 

proof n only it in 3 diff phones due to the hacking,erasn,redirecting 

my phone calls weni would call down there i kno this sounds. Crazy 

but I hav all th pictures to prove evrythg im teln u I would like for 
04-21-00378-CR

- 5 -

all 3cemployes to be fired my wife and Mr Aj. Fr consistently 

threatn me with harassment charges after askn him if he slept with 

my wife so them thy affair n MsDebra for knowing n shuting ths 

drive tru window n walkoff on me being rude n using vulgar 

language

Of course u kno every is goin to deny evrything so i will send photos 

of mess sent to mr aj from my wife aswell as a collage my wife 

erased called da sexual harasmt collage

Now if none of this wer tru y would thy go tru all this trouble to 

erase it

Thk you for ur time I knour buzy. Sincerely

Bmartinez

Plz if need b contact me at [number] plzn thk u

I hav contacted Bbb

Eoe n other agencies aswell in order to gt somethn done plz thk u

[sic throughout.]

The marketing and communications team responded, “Thank you for sending this 

information. I will forward it on to the appropriate management and HR team members. If they 

have any further questions, they will reach out to you.” Martinez sent two replies. In his first reply, 

Martinez wrote, “Ill sent it evry day till someone responds this man tore my family apart id give 

evry one drug test n fire half dat staff dey all need a lilt awk about appernce manners ncustomer 

service! [sic throughout.]” True to his word, Martinez repeatedly copy and pasted his original 

lengthy complaint again, including on July 15, 2019. In his second reply, he wrote, “Im not goin 

To b waiting on a response i want something done i will pursue this till the death of me my. Family 

my wife my kids. Gone My dogs gone. [sic throughout.]” Sonic’s internal emails described their 

“concern” with Martinez arising from this email. Ramirez also testified regarding Martinez’s social 
04-21-00378-CR

- 6 -

media posts about the alleged affair, including four or five posts by Martinez on Ramirez’s 

Facebook photos.

Guzman described Martinez appearing at Sonic multiple times a day, multiple days a week. 

Guzman also described Martinez’s repeated threats and accusations of an alleged affair with 

Palafos over the phone. After Guzman blocked Martinez’s number, Martinez contacted him 

through Facebook and Twitter before he was blocked there as well. Guzman testified that 

Martinez’s attention began with Palafos, shifted to Guzman, and finally settled on Ramirez.

Officer Clifford Burns testified that he responded to two calls at Ramirez’s home—first on 

July 14, 2019, and later on July 27, 2019. According to Burns’s report, Martinez traveled to 

Ramirez’s home and “he stopped in front of their house, got something out of his trunk, and then 

got back in the car and drove away.” Ramirez’s doorbell contained a motion-sensor-activated 

camera that records persons approaching the home. On July 27, 2019, the doorbell recorded 

Martinez again appearing at Ramirez’s house, opening the trunk of his car to retrieve an item, and 

then returning to his car. Ramirez called the police, and when Martinez showed up to Sonic later

that day, he was arrested.

Martinez was indicted for stalking under section 42.072 of the Texas Penal Code, with an 

enhancement paragraph appended because of prior convictions. Martinez’s jury trial commenced 

on June 7, 2021, and on June 11, 2021, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Appellant pled true to 

the enhancements, and the court sentenced Martinez to twenty-five years in the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Martinez asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the verdict. In a sufficiency 

claim, our role is “restricted to guarding against the rare occurrence when a factfinder does not act 

rationally.” Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We assess the evidence 
04-21-00378-CR

- 7 -

in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 

158, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979)). The 

essential elements of the offense are defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. 

Ramos v. State, 407 S.W.3d 265, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Conflicting inferences are resolved 

in favor of the verdict. Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Direct and 

circumstantial evidence are treated equally, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to 

establish guilt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

ANALYSIS

In two issues, Martinez asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.

Martinez asserts he was indicted for acts said to have occurred on July 9, July 10, and July 21, 

2019. But according to Martinez, the acts alleged on those dates do not rise to the level of stalking 

as part of an ongoing scheme, and a reasonable person would not perceive Martinez’s threats as 

threats of bodily injury.

We begin our review by noting the indictment separately charged allegations “on or about” 

July 9, July 10, and July 21. See Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (“It 

is well settled that the ‘on or about’ language of an indictment allows the State to prove a date 

other than the one alleged in the indictment as long as the date is anterior to the presentment of the 

indictment and within the statutory limitation period.”). Although witnesses could not always 

recall specific dates in relation to specific incidents, the jury could have reasonably believed all of 

Martinez’s actions occurred after his breakup with Palafos—being sometime in May, June, or July 

2019. Given the language of the indictment, the jury could have reasonably believed all conduct 

relating to the charged offence occurred anterior to presentment of the indictment and within the 

limitations period. See id.
04-21-00378-CR

- 8 -

Martinez’s stalking conviction required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Martinez, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that 

is directed specifically at Ramirez, intentionally or knowingly threatened to cause bodily injury to 

Ramirez with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass Ramirez, which 

Martinez knew or reasonably believed would cause Ramirez to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, 

abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended; and which caused Ramirez to reasonably feel 

harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended. See TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 42.072.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold there is legally 

sufficient evidence to support the verdict. See Evans, 202 S.W.3d at 161. The jury could have 

reasonably believed, based on the totality of the evidence before them, that Martinez conducted a 

stalking campaign against Ramirez between his breakup with Palafos in May 2019 and his arrest 

in July 2019. The jury could have rationally believed Martinez’s conduct was intended to terrorize 

Ramirez, did terrorize Ramirez, and a reasonable person in Ramirez’s shoes would also have been 

terrified.

On July 9, 2019, Martinez visited the Sonic multiple times and exhibited erratic behavior, 

including cussing at employees, banging on the windows, and attempting to gain entry to the store. 

At Ramirez’s request, Garcia returned to the Sonic after Ramirez felt threatened, whereupon 

Martinez twice threatened to shoot Garcia before throwing a water bottle at him. See Hansen v. 

State, 224 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006 pet. ref’d) (stalking “course of 

conduct” can include conduct the complainant would regard as threatening bodily injury to a 

family member). Both 911 calls placed that day and bodycam video corroborated Ramirez’s 

testimony.
04-21-00378-CR

- 9 -

On July 10, 2019, Martinez drove by Ramirez and Garcia’s home and held out his hand 

with a white shirt or towel on top of it. The jury could have reasonably believed Ramirez’s 

testimony that she thought Martinez hid a gun under the shirt or towel because by that time, 

Martinez had threatened to shoot both her and Garcia on multiple occasions. Plus, while Martinez 

held out his covered hand, he stated, “I’m going to shoot you, I’m going to kill you.” Martinez 

points out that neither Ramirez nor Garcia saw a gun and did not know him to carry or own 

weapons. According to Martinez, this conduct is insufficient to place a reasonable person in fear 

or feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended. Martinez asserts, 

“It could just as easily be surmised that Martinez was waving a white flag of surrender.” But our 

standard of review requires us to view the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict. The jury 

could have determined that a reasonable person, subjected to Martinez’s conduct and threats of 

violence—including those made one day earlier—would be in fear or feel harassed, annoyed, 

alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended by Martinez holding out his covered hand 

as he stated he threatened to shoot and kill her.

With respect to Martinez’s conduct on July 21, 2019, Martinez asserts Ramirez’s 

“testimony cannot be believed.” The jury saw pictures of Martinez pointing off camera inside 

Sonic’s non-public space; heard from Ramirez that Martinez pointed at her and stated she “better 

not be effing lying to him” about Palafos; heard testimony from Detective Barbara Thomas that 

her investigation found credible that Martinez knocked items off the shelves in Sonic’s storage 

area; and that Martinez later drove to Ramirez’s home (as previously stated, located on a street 

with two dead-ends) and cussed her out before speeding off.

Martinez yet again returned to Ramirez’s home on July 27, 2021. This time, he was 

recorded by the doorbell camera. The video shows Ramirez exiting his car, opening his trunk and 

removing an object, and then returning to his car. Given the totality of the evidence, the jury could 
04-21-00378-CR

- 10 -

have believed Ramirez’s testimony that Martinez went to the Sonic around thirty times and drove 

by her home twenty to twenty-five times. The jury also considered documentary evidence 

demonstrating Martinez’s erratic behavior, including some of the nineteen emailed complaints to 

Sonic (one of which we have quoted at length) and his ominous July 15, 2019 reply, “Im not goin 

To b waiting on a response i want something done i will pursue this till the death of me my. Family 

my wife my kids. Gone My dogs gone. [sic throughout.]”

Applying the appropriate standard of review, the overwhelming weight of the evidence 

supports the jury’s verdict. We overrule Martinez’s issues.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled Martinez’s issues, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH