MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00889-CR

Christian ADAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR1852A

Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 20, 2011

AFFIRMED

The trial court convicted Christian Adams of aggravated robbery and assessed 

punishment at eight years confinement. On appeal, Adams contends the evidence is insufficient 

to support the aggravating element of the robbery — that he used or exhibited a firearm. We 

affirm.
04-10-00889-CR

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

Claudia Solis observed two young males, Adams and Robert Ruffins, walking down the 

street at around 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. when she was in her car returning home from shopping. 

The young men were the only individuals Solis saw on the street that night, and she noted that 

they had their hands in their pockets and hoods over their heads. After Solis passed Adams and 

Ruffins, the two men turned around and began walking in the same direction that Solis was 

traveling. 

Solis arrived at her home and she backed her vehicle into her driveway. When she 

looked out toward the street, Solis saw that Adams and Ruffins had caught up with her and were 

standing outside her residence on the sidewalk. Ruffins approached Solis and asked whether he 

could borrow her cell phone. Solis responded negatively, and the young man then asked if he 

could borrow five dollars. Solis again responded negatively, and the young man proceeded to 

ask Solis if her husband was inside her home. Solis answered “no” and then inquired about how 

she could otherwise be of assistance to the young men. The men replied that they were having 

car trouble and Solis indicated to them that she would go get her house phone for them to make a 

call for assistance.

When Solis turned to go inside her residence, the two men ran up behind her, pushed her 

toward her front door, and ordered her to give them her “fucking purse.” Solis felt the men 

pressing something against the back of her head and turned around. When she did, Solis saw the 

men holding what she thought were handguns and tried to push them away from her head.1

 

Although Solis was not absolutely certain the robbers were holding handguns, she nonetheless 

believed the men were brandishing firearms due to their aggressiveness and the fact that she saw 

what appeared to be the metallic tips of guns pointing at her. Solis stated that she saw only about 

 1 Solis testified she got a good look at her assailants’ faces at this time. 
04-10-00889-CR

- 3 -

one inch of the guns because the sleeves of Adams’s and Ruffins’s clothing concealed the other 

parts of their weapons. Solis also concluded the men were holding handguns because the objects 

the men pointed at her felt cold when she pushed them away from her head and the objects felt 

like guns. 

Solis continued to push the robbers’ guns away from her head until one of them asked if 

she thought they were “fucking playing with her?” Solis decided to cooperate with the robbers 

and gave them her purse and car keys. When the two men left the premises, Solis went inside 

her residence and called 9-1-1. The police arrived shortly thereafter, but they were unable to 

locate the robbers. The police subsequently showed Solis a photographic line-up and she 

identified Adams and Ruffins as her assailants. Adams was later arrested and indicted for 

committing aggravated robbery. 

Adams pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial. The jury was unable to reach a 

verdict and the trial court granted a mistrial. Adams waived his right to a jury upon the retrial of 

his case and was convicted by the trial court following a bench trial. The trial court sentenced 

Adams to a term of eight years imprisonment and this appeal followed. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Adams’s sole issue on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

conviction for aggravated robbery. During a sufficiency review, we examine all of the evidence 

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

found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “‘This Court may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the record 

evidence and . . . substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.’” Williams v. State, 235 

S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation omitted). Thus, we give deference to “‘the 
04-10-00889-CR

- 4 -

responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, 

and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Direct and circumstantial evidence cases are treated equally during our review of the evidence: 

“‘Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, 

and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.’” Clayton v. State, 235 

S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

A person commits the offense of robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with 

the intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or 

recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places 

another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.02(a) (West 2011). 

A robbery is aggravated if a person uses or exhibits a deadly weapon in the course of committing 

the robbery. Id. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). In relation to a deadly weapon, the term “use” 

means to employ or utilize in order to achieve its purpose. Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 

941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). A deadly weapon is exhibited when it is consciously shown or 

displayed during the commission of the offense. Id. “The use of a deadly weapon may be 

established even though the victim did not actually see the gun.” Barehill v. State, 740 S.W.2d 

572, 574 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). 

Here, Adams contends the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravating element of 

the robbery, i.e., that he used or exhibited a firearm during the commission of the offense. 

According to Adams, no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he 

used or exhibited a firearm during the commission of the offense because: (1) none of the alleged 

robbers claimed to have a gun or made any threats to shoot the complainant; (2) the complainant 
04-10-00889-CR

- 5 -

never testified to seeing “an entire gun”; and (3) the complainant acknowledged that “what she 

thought might have been a gun could very well have been a black magic marker.” 

Although Solis did not see an entire gun or hear any remarks from the robbers about their 

possession of guns, the trier of fact heard ample other evidence to support Solis’s perception that 

her assailants used or exhibited guns during the commission of the offense. The record shows 

Adams and his companion were acting aggressively toward Solis and kept their hands in their 

shirt sleeves throughout the robbery as if to conceal a gun. The complainant testified that she 

saw what appeared to be the metallic tips of gun barrels pointing at her from inside the men’s 

shirtsleeves during the course of the robbery. When Solis came into contact with the objects that 

the robbers held, she noted the objects were cold and felt like guns. 

As for the fact that Solis acknowledged during trial that “what she thought might have 

been a gun could very well have been a black magic marker,” such testimony concerns the trial 

court’s role in resolving conflicts, weighing the evidence, and making credibility determinations. 

Moreover, each fact need not point directly and independently to Adams’s guilt as long as the 

conclusion is warranted by the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating 

circumstances. See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Viewing all of 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to 

establish that Adams used or exhibited a firearm during the commission of the offense. See 

Benavidez v. State, 670 S.W.2d 297, 300-01 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983, no pet.) (concluding 

evidence was sufficient to support a finding that appellant used a handgun during the 

commission of a robbery where appellant poked the complainant in the back with something that 

felt like a gun and complainant testified that she heard what she believed was the cocking of a 

gun during the commission of the offense). 
04-10-00889-CR

- 6 -

CONCLUSION

Adams’s sole issue on appeal is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH