Affirm and Opinion F iled December 28, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas Nos. 05-21-00605-CR 05-21-00606-CR 05-21-00607-CR TYRONE DEWAYNE SOMMERS, SR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 071533, 070802, 070803 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Appellant Tyrone Dewayne Sommers, Sr. appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit murder-enhanced, tampering with evidence-enhanced, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon-enhanced. 1 In three appellate issues, Sommers contends (1-2) the evidence was le gally insufficient to support any of the

1 Sommers was indicted for conspiracy to commit the murder of Robert Allen. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE §§ 15.02, 19.02(b). Sommers was also charged with possessing a firearm and tampering with evidence related to the murder. See id . §§ 37.09(a)(1), 46.04(a)(2). 1 Sommers pleaded not gu ilty to the charges and not true to the enhancement pa ragraphs of the indictments.–2– convictions and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Trial On October 31, 2017, after re alizing her hus band, Robert, 2 had not returned home from work, Stacy Allen went to Alle n’s Plumbing to check on him. Upon her arrival, Stacy found the b ack door ajar and Robert la ying, unresponsive, in the hallway. As she called 911, Stacy realized he had been shot and was dead. Family and friends told law enfo rcement Tim Barnum most likely was involved in Robert’s murder. Barnum wa s the ex-boyfriend of Amanda Allen, Robert and Stacy’s daughter, and the father of their granddaughter. Amanda testified she and Barnum dated from 2010-2015 and ha d one child from the relationship. She admitted she had purchased a firearm fo r Barnum in 2013. Ama nda and Barnum had a tumultuous relationship, which ended wh en Barnum was charged with assaulting Amanda in 2015. Amanda stated that Barnum threatened to kill her and her family if she did not drop the charges and Bar num blamed Robert for her filing charges against him. She allowed Barnum to visit th e child until late 2015 when he withheld their daughter from her for a period of ten days before returning her. After that,

2 Multiple members of the Allen family testified at trial, so we will identify them by their first names for the sake of clarity.–3– Robert did not want Barnum to see the ch ild again and a family court entered a no contact, no visitation order against Barnum. Different individuals who worked at Allen’s Plumbing testified they knew Barnum threatened Robert and his family, th at Robert had a gun at the business in response to those threats, and there were precautions taken at the business because of those threats. The employees also testif ied Robert frequently st ayed late at work, and always had the back door of the busin ess locked after hours. One of the last people thought to see Robert, Roger Phillips, stated he left Allen’s Plumbing on October 31 around 8:15 p.m. Amanda testified that on October 31, 2017, she was trick-or-treating with her ch ildren earlier in the eveni ng, and after taking a friend home, she drove by Allen’s Plumbing at 10: 08 p.m. and noticed the back door was open. She stated she was going to call and check up on Robert, but forgot and fell asleep as soon as she got home. She awoke to her sister telling her Robert had been killed. Texas Ranger Brad Oliver assisted the Denison Police Department on the case. He testified he was ca lled out on the night of the murder, and when he arrived at the crime scene, nothing from Allen’s Plumbing appeared missing and there were no signs of forced entry. Initially Barnum was the only suspect in the offense but they got a break in the case in early 2018 when an anonymous caller mentioned Sommers for the first time. That anonymous caller was Barnum’s si ster-in-law, Toni–4– Barnum. 3 After that call, law enforcement re ceived information from the Durant, Oklahoma police department concerning evidence from an August 2016 case in which Barnum shot his father, Herman Barnum, with Sommers present. Sommers took Herman to a hospital in Durant, and the men told law enforcement they were shot near the casinos. Bullets recovere d from Herman’s vehicle matched bullets found at the scene of Robert’s murder. Th e parties stipulated that Barnum shot Herman, and the same gun was used in the murder of Robert Allen. In March 2018, law enforcement inte rviewed Barnum’s girlfriend, Haley Lummus, and searched their shared home. During that search, two black masks were recovered: a regular ski mask, a blac k mask from the movie “Scream.” Law enforcement also interviewed Sommers w ho told them Barnum was his second cousin, and Barnum let Sommers stay in a house he owned in Sherman in exchange for “fixing it up.” Sommers stated on Octobe r 31, 2017, he was in Sherman drinking and “getting high,” and not in Denison. He denied ever threatening people for Barnum or being at a plumbing store in Denison. Sommers admitted, however, that he was present when Barnum shot Herman in 2016, and he took Herman to Durant. After interviewing the people Sommers sa id he was with on October 31, 2017, law enforcement arrested him for murder . Those individuals told police Sommers was with them earlier in the day but he le ft their group in the early evening when

3 Multiple members of the Barnum fami ly also testified at trial, so we will identify them by their first names as well.–5– they went trick-or-treating. Law enforcem ent also collected cel l phone records that placed Sommers in Denison near Allen’s Plumbing on October 31. During a second interview, Sommers told law enforcement his only involvement in Robert’s murder was the dispose of the murder weapon in the Denison dam area. Sommers told police he purchased a red Cadillac from Barnum on November 1, 2017, the same day Barnum gave him the gun to dispose of. Denison Police Detective John Watt testified he conducted the second interview of Sommers where Sommers told him Barnum called him to “get rid of a gun.” Sommers said it was a .357 chrome revolver. When confronted with cell phone records placing him in Denison on the even ing of October 31, 2017, Sommers said Barnum picked him up at a nearby trailer pa rk where he was with a friend, they “rolled” by Allen’s Plumbing, and Barnum had black clothes and a mask. Sommers said about an hour later, Barnum messaged him saying, “I tripped the F out,” but Sommers did not respond. The following day, Barnum asked him to dispose of the gun. The murder weapon was never located. Lummus testified she moved in w ith Barnum around Marc h 2017 and never heard him complain about the Allens. Sh e knew Barnum had a gun because she saw him with it. On October 31, 2017, she went trick-or-treating in Sherman with her children and returned to Denison aroun d 8:45 p.m. When she returned, Barnum pulled into the driveway behind her and she saw a “bald, black guy” with him. According to Lummus, Barnum also had th e Scream mask, dark clothes, and tennis–6– shoes with duct tape on them. She stated sh e “knew to not ask questions of Barnum.” Later that evening, Barnum returned home a nd told her to go with him to pick up his cousin near the car wash in Denison. She said they picked up the same “bald black guy” she had seen earlier. Lummus also recalled going to Sonic on their way home and Barnum asking for a receipt, whic h she stated was “unusual.” On crossexamination, Lummus stated she susp ected Sommers based on information from Toni, and Toni gave her the idea the hous e in Sherman and Cadillac were given to Sommers for his “participation.” Toni Barnum explained that she was the anonymous ca ller in 2018. She testified that she was on the phone with Barnum’s then-gir lfriend when Barnum shot Herman in 2016, and she heard three guns hots over the phone. In December 2017, Lummus told her for eight months prior to Robert’s murder, Sommers and Barnum went on “dry runs” for the crime. Lummus stated she would go with them at the beginning but then stopped. On October 31, Lummus told Toni she saw the gun and it was “thrown into her lap” after Barnum and her picked up Sommers at the car wash. Lummus also said she saw two mask s: a black one Sommers wore and the Scream one Barnum wore. Herman testified he knew Barnum had i ssues with Robert over visitation with his child. He told the jury Barnum had prev iously asked him to kill Robert and he repeatedly refused, which caused Barnum to get upset. In 2016, Barnum texted Herman and called him a “coward” for not wanting to kill Robert. Herman and–7– Sommers went over to talk to Barnum. Herman said wh en he got out of his car, Barnum began shooting at him and he was hit in the lower part of his back. Herman had Sommers drive him to Durant because he did not want the “cops” called. Herman said he talked to Sommers about Robert, but Sommers said he was not going to get involved. A few days after Robert’s murd er, Herman saw Sommers in Sherman at Barnum’s house with the red Cadillac. So mmers told Herman he had “helped Barnum out” and shot Robert. According to Herman, Sommers stated Barnum and Lummus took him to Allen’s Plumbing, Robe rt heard a noise, and when he stood up, Sommers “busted him” two times. Herman also testified he had been charged with aggravated perjury for lying to the gr and jury during the investigation of this case. He admitted the aggrav ated perjury charge was be ing dismissed in exchange for his testimony at trial. Forensic scientists Rebekah Lloyd fro m the Texas Department of Public Safety tested the masks for gunshot residue (GSR). She testified the Scream mask had no GSR and the ski mask had “1 indicativ e particle of GSR.” She explained that particle could be from some thing other than just shooting a gun and there was no way to determine how long it had been there. Phillip Duong conducted firearms analysis on the bullets recovered in 2016 and at Allen’s Plumbing and determined all three bullets were shot with the same gun. Andrew Smith testified for the State. Smith had been incarcerated with both Barnum and Sommers prior to their trials. Smith explained Barnum started speaking–8– to him about Robert’s murder after a fe w months being housed together. Barnum told him he wanted Robert dead because he would not let him see his child and that his cousin, Sommers, killed Robert. In ex change, Barnum said he gave Sommers the house and two ounces of methamphetamine. Barnum told Smith he picked up Sommers and dropped him off near Allen’s Plumbing, and then me t him later at the car wash. Sommers had the murder weapon and was supposed to get rid of it, but Barnum did not believe he did. Later, when Smith was housed with Sommers, Sommers told him Barnum picked him up from the trailer park in Denison, dropped him near Allen’s Plumbing, and he walked up to the back door. Sommers told Smith he knocked on the door, and when Robert opened it, he “smoked him.” After the shooting, Sommers said he “hauled ass to the car wash ” where Barnum picked him up with a “white girl.” Sommers explaine d that Barnum had given him the gun to use, which was the same one Barnum shot Herman with , and Sommers threw it in the lake. On cross-examination, Smith ad mitted he received a reduced sentence for the offenses he was incarcerated for in ex change for his testimony, but he had to cooperate in order for the reduction to occur. He also stated he became friends with Barnum and Barnum wanted his help to “create” a story that implicated Sommers, instead of him. Andrew Alexander also te stified about an event he witnessed on October 31, 2017. While out walking his dog, a man a pproached Alexander and asked to borrow his phone. Alexander agreed and the man ca lled Barnum’s number, as determined–9– by cell phone records collected. Alexande r did not know the man and could not identify him in court. Alexander said th e man returned his phone and continued walking down the street in the direction of the car wash. After the State rested, Toni Barnum wa s recalled by the defense. She testified that after Herman told her Sommers was living in Sherman at Barnum’s house and driving the red Cadillac, she spoke to him herself where he admitted his involvement. A jury found Sommers guilty of all th ree charges, found the enhancements true, and sentenced him to 75 years’ im prisonment on the conspiracy charge, 40 years’ imprisonment for being a fel on possessing a firearm, and 25 years’ imprisonment for tampering with evidence. II. Motion for New Trial Sommers filed a motion for new trial upon learning Amanda and Smith were friends prior to their testimony at trial. At a hearing, Amanda te stified she met Smith sometime in 2018 and was friends with his sister. She explained they met through mutual friends and would spend time together in social settings. She stated that later they communicated more frequently on th e phone, which continued after Smith was incarcerated. Amanda said the only thing th ey discussed about the trial was when they would be there to testify, but neve r what they were te stifying about. Amanda agreed there were times in the communications that they spoke of a sexual relationship in the future and possibly living together, but at the time of the hearing,–10– neither of those had occurred. She denied th ey were trying to keep their relationship secret and stated there were times they were “live” on Face book. Amanda agreed she never disclosed to prosecutors that she knew Smith or was speaking to him. Smith testified he believe d he came to know Amanda in late 2020, upon being released from jail, and he initially me ssaged her on Facebook. Smith agreed he initially gave his statement to law enforcem ent about Robert’s murder on December 10, 2019. He stated he did not spend time with Amanda until sometime in 2021, because she was friends with his sister . Smith said their relationship was not romantic, but was “flirty” and they had us ed drugs together. Smith explained they spoke often after he was incarcerated and did have plans to have a sexual relationship, although it never happened. He sa id they never talked about the case or trial because Amanda said “she couldn’t talk about it . . . we never had any discussion about details about anything related to the actual murder or the trial.” Smith also stated that the relationship “had no bearing on my participation with the prosecution.” The prosecutor testified he was unaware of any contact be tween Amanda and Smith until “sometime after the Sommers trial.” He explained Smith had been moved for his safety since it would co me to light he was cooperating through discovery. He was not sure if the fac ilities Smith was moved to had the capabilities to record phone calls in the jail. He stat ed this came to light because Amanda contacted one of their victim coordinators due to threats she received and the victim–11– coordinator noticed three conversations co ming out of the jail between Amanda and Smith. He notified defense counsel and pr ovided transcripts of the conversations. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Sommers raises three issues on appeal . First, he states that the evidence is legally insufficient to show an agreem ent between Sommers and Barnum to commit the murder of Robert. Next, Sommers argues the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the “extrajudicial confessi on” of Sommers for the tampering with evidence and felon in possession of a fir earm charges. Last, Sommers alleges the trial court abused its discre tion in failing to grant his mo tion for new trial based on evidence that Amanda and Smith had a “personal relationship.” I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Sommers asserts the evidence does not show an agreement between himself and Barnum to commit Robert’s mu rder. He also argues under the corpus delicti rule that the evidence was insufficient to suppor t his convictions for tampering and felon in possession of a firearm. We review a sufficiency challenge by c onsidering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and de termine, whether, based on the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a ra tional jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); Matlock v. State , 392 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013);–12– Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the fact finder’s credibility and weight determinati ons because the fact finder is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and th e weight to be given to their testimony. See Winfrey v. State , 393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2013). The fact finder can choose to believe all, some , or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State , 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1991). “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.” Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Evid ence is sufficient if “the inferences necessary to establish guilt are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence when considered in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Wise v. State , 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex . Crim. App. 2012). We measure whether the evidence presente d at trial was sufficient to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elem ents of the offense as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v. State , 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Th e hypothetically correct jury charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liabilities, and adequately de scribes the particular offe nse for which the defendant was tried.” Id .; see also Daugherty v. State , 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The “law as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements of–13– the offense and those elements “as modified by the indictment.” Curry v. State , 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A hypothetically correct charge for c onspiracy to commit murder states: (a) A person commits criminal conspir acy, if with intent that murder be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute murder; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. (b) An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the parties.
T EX

. P ENAL C ODE § 15.02. A person commits murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.” Id . § 19.02(b)(1). A hypothetically correct charge for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon states: (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm: (1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony; or (2) after the period described in Subsection (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives. Id . § 46.04(a). A hypothetically correct charge for tampering with physical evidence

means: (a) A person commits an offense, if knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:–14– (1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its ver ity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation. Id . § 37.09(a)(1). A. Conspiracy to Commit Murder Under a hypothetically correct jury charge, the State must prove Sommers agreed with one or more persons to enga ge in conduct that would constitute murder and one of more of the parties perform ed an overt act towards that goal. Id . § 15.02. “Since an agreement between parties to act together in common design can seldom be proved by words, the State often must re ly on the actions of parties, shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, to es tablish an understanding or common design to commit the offense.” Ervin v. State , 333 S.W.3d 187, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). A defendant’s intent may be inferred from his words, acts, and conduct. Guevara v. State , 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (T ex. Crim. App. 2004) (relying on circumstantial evidence); Gittens v. State , 560 S.W.3d 725, 735 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, pet ref’d). Here, the State presented testimony from multiple witnesses to show Sommers and Barnum planned and executed the murder of Robert. Members of the Allen and Barnum families testified Barnum had a mo tive for killing Robe rt. Herman said Barnum had repeatedly asked him to kill Robert for him. Herman and Toni both testified Sommers told them Barnum ga ve him the house in Sherman and the red–15– Cadillac in exchange for kil ling Robert. Smith explained how he came to know both Barnum and Sommers while they were incarce rated in the same jail. He testified both Barnum and Sommers told him, on se parate occasions, that Sommers killed Robert for Barnum. The people Sommers had been with ear lier in the day on October 31, 2017, stated Sommers left when they went trick-or-treating. Sommers’s phone records put him in the area of Allen’ s Plumbing on October 31, 2017, and he admitted he and Barnum drove by Allen’s Plumbing that night and had black masks in the car. Lummus stated she and Barnum picked up a “bald black man” from the car wash on October 31. Toni also testif ied Lummus told her Barnum and Sommers did “dry runs” in preparation for killi ng Robert, they picked up Sommers from the car wash, and the gun ended up in her lap that evening. Sommers correctly states there wa s overwhelming evidence that Barnum wanted to kill Robert. He maintains, however, there was no physical evidence or eyewitnesses to tie him to the scene, and the statemen ts from multiple witnesses alone are insufficient to support the convi ction. We disagree. The jury heard the testimony, including the benefits certain w itnesses would gain from their testimony, and found support to convict Sommers. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to support a conviction. Hooper , 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury can believe all, some, or none of the ev idence presented and we defer to the weight the jury gave to the testimony it heard. See Winfrey , 393 S.W.3d at 768; Chambers , 805 S.W.2d at 461. Here, the jury heard the evidence an d chose to believe there was an agreement–16– between Sommers and Barnum to kill Robert. The jury also chose to believe one or both of them committed an overt act to furt her that goal. The evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict for cons piracy to commit murder. We overrule Sommers’s first issue. B. Tampering with Evidence and Fe lon in Possession of a Firearm In his second issue, Sommers contends the evidence is insufficient because the convictions for tampering with evid ence and felon in possession of a firearm were based on his extrajudicial confession. Sommers relies on the corpus delicti rule to argue this sufficiency point. The corpus delicti rule is a judicial rule of evidentiary sufficiency “affecting cases in which there is an extrajudicial confession.” Shumway v. State , ––S.W.3d–– , ––, 2022 WL 301737, at *5 (Tex. Crim . App. Feb. 2, 2022) (quoting Miller v. State , 457 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) ). It requires “[w]hen a conviction is based on a defendant’s extraj udicial confession, that c onfession does not constitute legally sufficient evidence of guilt withou t corroborating evidence independent of that confession showing that the essentia l nature of the offense was committed.” Id

. (quoting Miranda v. State , 620 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2021)). The corpus delicti rule essentially adds an extr a requirement to our traditional Jackson legal sufficiency analysis for cases involving extrajudicial confessions. Id

. Under the corpus delicti rule, “the corroborating evidence does not need to independently prove the crime, but must simply make the occurrence of the crime–17– more probable than it would be without the evidence.” Id . The corpus delicti of a particular crime is simply “t he fact that the crime in question has been committed by someone.” Id . (quoting Fisher v. State , 851 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). It does not require proof that the specific defendant committed the criminal act, just that the crime itself occurred. Id

. Sommers gave extrajudicial statements admitting he disposed of the gun for Barnum. He told law enforcement that, on N ovember 1, 2017, he tr aveled to Denison to retrieve the gun from Barnum and then disposed of it near the Denison dam. Sommers also accompanied law enforcement to the da m area and showed them where he threw the gun into the water. Sommers made th ese statements in early 2018. Although a law enforcement dive team searched the area, the gun was never recovered. Sommers’s statements were not the only evidence regarding Sommers disposing of the gun. Smith also testif ied that Barnum told him Sommers was supposed to dispose of the gun used, but had doubts Sommers actually did so. Sommers also told Smith he used a gun to commit the murder and then “threw it in the lake.” The jury was entitled to be lieve Smith’s testimony to corroborate Sommers’s previous statemen ts to law enforcement. Because corpus delicti only requires that the evidence show a crime was committed, and not specifically by who, the statements Smith attributes to Barnum and Sommers are sufficient to support the convictions for tampering with evidence–18– and felon in possession of a firearm. See Shumway , 2022 WL 301737, at *5. We overrule Sommers’s second issue. II. Motion for New Trial In his third issue, Sommers argues th e trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial. Sommers’s motion for new trial is based on a claim of newly discovered evidence. In his motion, and at a later h earing, Sommers developed evidence to show a prior unknown relationship be tween Amanda and Smith. “A new trial shall be granted to an a ccused where material evidence favorable to the accused has been discovered since trial.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 40.001. To obtain relief under this pr ovision, the defendant must satisfy a four-prong test: (1) the newly discovered evidence was unkn own or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) the defendant’s failu re to discover or obtain the new evidence was not due to his lack of due diligence; (3) the new evidence is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collate ral, or impeaching; and (4) the new evidence is probably true and will probably bring about a different result in a new trial. State v. Arizmendi , 519 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); see Jasso v. State , 05-19-00117-CR, 05-19-00118-CR, 05-19-00119-CR, 2022 WL 2187452, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 17, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.). At the new trial hearing, Amanda a nd Smith admitted to meeting each other after Robert’s murder and staying in cont act throughout the trial. They both stated–19– they spent time together in social setti ngs prior to Smith’s incarceration, and continued to talk by phone afte r he was in custody. Althoug h they did not tell anyone they were communicating with each other, th ey each told the trial court they did not discuss any aspects of the case or any testimony given in the trial. The State’s prosecutor testified he was unaware of a relationship betwee n Amanda and Smith until an employee of the district attorney’s office brought it to his attention. He notified defense counsel when he learned of the relationship between Amanda and Smith. Sommers established evidence of the first two prongs: the evidence was unknown or unavailable to him at the time of trial and his failure to discover or obtain the new evidence was not due to his lack of due diligence. See Arizmendi , 519 S.W.3d at 149. However, the evidence pres ented does not establish the remaining elements. Amanda and Smith both stated th ey did not discuss their testimony or trial other than what time they would be at th e courthouse to testify. Evidence of their relationship would, thus, serve no purpose other than to impeach Amanda and Smith’s credibility. See id . (stating a defendant must show the evidence is not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching). Moreover, Sommers failed to show the evidence would probably bring a bout a different result in a new trial. See id . We conclude the trial court did not a buse its discretion by denying Sommers’s motion for new trial. We overru le Sommers’s third issue.–20– CONCLUSION Under this record, we conclude th e evidence was sufficient to support Sommers’s convictions for conspiracy to commit murder, tamper ing with evidence, and felon in possession of a firearm. We al so conclude the tria l court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sommers’s moti on for new trial. We overrule his three issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). 210605F.U05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE–21– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TYRONE DEWAYNE SOMMERS, SR., Appellant

No. 05-21-00605-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 071533.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 28th day of December 2022.–22– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TYRONE DEWAYNE SOMMERS, SR., Appellant No. 05-21-00606-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 071533.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 28th day of December 2022.–23– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TYRONE DEWAYNE SOMMERS, SR., Appellant No. 05-21-00607-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 071533.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 28th day of December 2022.