1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 165- CR E DDI E DON P I NK S T ON, J R . AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 371STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A ppel l antEddi e D on P i nkst on, Jr . appeal s hi s convi ct i ons and sent ences f orag gr ava t ed as sa ul tw i t h a de adl y w ea pon and agg r ava t ed r obbe ry w i t h a st i ck used as a deadl y w eapon . I n t w o poi nt s, A ppel l antchal l enges t he l egal a n d f a c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c yo ft h e a g g r a v a t e d ro b b e ryc o n v ic t io n a n d a r g u e st h a th is2 ... W hen asked abou thi s pr evi ous st at em entbef or e t r i al to hi s att or ney

t hatA ppel l antsai d t he w or d “w al l et ” dur i ng t he at t ack, R i os st at ed t hath e w as notab so l ut el y c ert ai n t hatheha d he ar d Appel l ants ay t hatw or d. 2 c o n v i c ti o n sv i o l a te d o u b l e j e o p a rd y . W e m o d i fyt h e ju d g m e n t i n p a rt a n d a ffir m i tasm odi f i ed. I I . Fac t ualan d proce duralba ck gr ound O n M ay 19, 2007 , ReneRi osw entt o t he st or e to pu r ch as e a l ongdi st anc e p honeca r d a nd t ookhi s nei ghbor , A ppe l l ant , w i t h hi m . W hen Ri os pur chased t he car d, he had appr oxi m at el y $4 00 i n hi s w al l et , i n t w ent y dol l ar i ncr em ent s. Ri ost es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antw aspr es ent dur i ng t he pur cha sean d i n a p o sit i o n to s e e the m o n e yi n R i o s’s w a l l e t. R i os and A ppel l antr et ur ned t o R i os’ s house. R i os t est i f i ed t hathe w as t al ki ng t o A ppel l antout si de w hen “som e b o d yh i tm e f r om t he back, I t ur ned and t hen I r ecei ved t he ot herhi ti n t he f ace. ” R i os st at ed t hat he di d not see t he obj ec tus ed t o hi thi m butkn ew i tw asnots om eon e’ s han d be ca us e t he obj ectw as very har d. R i os st at ed t hat A ppel l ant and t w o ot heri ndi vi dual s t r i ed t o obt ai n hi s bi l l f ol d w hi l e he w asr unni ng aw ay f r om t hem t ow ar d t he bac k o f h ish o u s e . H e t e s t if ie d t h a th e c o u ld f e e l t h e irh a n d st ry in g t o “ p u l l a th is b i l l fo l d ” i n side h i s b a c kp o c k e t. 2 Ri os t e s t i f i e d t ha t hi s m aj or i nj ury w as near hi s r i ght eye.3

A f t ert he at t ack, O f f i cerM ason Fi ncherar r i ved at t he scene. O f f i cer Fi nch ers t at ed t hatRi osha d a l ar ge l ac er at i on on t he bac k o fhi s hea d a nd a la r g e s w e llin g t o t h e rig h ts id e o fh isf a c e . H e t e s t if ie d t h a t h e w a sn o ts u r e if Ri osw as“ hi tso har d t hati t[ ] ha d s pl i tt he sk i n ope n”ori fRi osha d be en “s hot nea rt he eye . ” O f f i ce r Fi nch er st at ed t hat he had as ke d Ri osque st i onst hr ough hi s si st er , Th er esa, because R i os di d not speak Eng l i sh. Th er esa t ol d hi m t hat th e s u s p e c t’sn a m e w a s“ E ri c ” w h o l i v e d i n th e P i n k s to n h o m e n e x t to R i o s ’s hou se. O f f i cerFi nchert est i fi ed t hathe had cal l ed f oran am bul ance because Ri os ’ s i nj ur i esw er e e xt ens i ve, ca us i ng hi m t o “ sl i p[ ] i n a nd ou tof con sc i ous nes s. ” O f f i ce rFi nch ers t at ed t hatRi os ’ s i nj ur i esw er e s eve r e e nough t o put hi m i n f eart hatRi os coul d “expi r e att hatpoi nt . ” O f f i c erFi ncher as su m ed t hatt he su sp ec t , “ Er i c, ” w asac t ual l y Appel l antan d r et r i eve d a m u g s h o t to s h o w T h e re s a , w h o c o n fi rm e d “ E ri c ” w a si n fa c t “ E d d i e P i n k s to n .” O ffice rF in c h e r th e n w e n t to th e h o s p i ta l a n d to o kp h o to g ra p h so f R i o s ’s i nj ur i es , w hi ch i ncl ude d a l ac er at i on ne arRi os ’ s eyean d t he l ac er at i on on t he bac k o fRi os ’ s hea d.3 ... Ri ost es t i f i ed t hathe w or ks“very l i t t l e”now beca us e h e s uf f er s f r om

convu l si ons, w hi ch he di d not exper i ence pr i ort o t he at t ack. Ri os st at ed t hat he al so suf f er s f r om m em or y l oss.

4 ... D et ect i ve R ando l ph t est i f i ed a b out t hi s i nt ervi ew and st at ed t hat A ppe l l antha d a l so t ol d hi m t hathe “f r ont ed”R i ost he coc ai ne, expec t i ng t o be p a i d l a te r. 4 Ri ost es t i f i ed t hathe st aye d i n t he hos pi t alf or“ t w o ort hr eeda ys ” and t hat doctor s sur gi cal l y at t ached m et al pl at es t o t he bon e nearhi s eye. 3 A ft e r R i o s ’s s u rg e ry , D e te c ti v e B .K . M c H o rs e s p o k e w i th h i m th ro u g h a n i n te rp re te r, RobertV ar gas . Det ec t i ve M cHor set es t i f i ed t hathepr ovi ded a phot o s pr ea d, and Ri os i denti f i ed A ppel l ant out of si x i ndi vi dual s w i t h si m i l arf aci al f eat ur es. Det e c t i ve M c Hor s e w r ot e t he or i gi na l w a r r a nt a nd pr e s e nt e d i t t o t he j udg e; D et ec t i ve Bi l l y Rand ol ph t ookove rt he r es toft he i nve st i gat i on. Po l i c e a r r e s t e d Appe l l a nto n Ju ne22, 2007 . O n June26, 2007 , D et ect i ve R ando l ph i nt ervi ew ed A ppel l ant . I n t he i nt ervi ew , A ppel l antw ai ved hi s Mi randar i ghtsand di scussed t he act i vi t i e s h e h a d p art i ci pat ed i n on M ay 19 , 20 07 . A ppel l anti ni t i al l y deni ed any kno w l edge of t he at t ack on R i os. A ppel l antt hen adm i t t ed t hatRi os spoke w i t h hi m ar oun d 8 or9 o ’cl o c kt hat ni ghtan d t hatA ppe l l ant“ w entan d got[ pow der ] co ca i ne f orhi m . ” A ppe l l ant s t a t e d t h a th e “ c a lle d h is p a rt n e r ,” w h o b r o u g h tt h e c o c a in e . A p p e lla n ts a id th a t R i o s p a i d h i s fri e n d , n o t him , fo r t h e co c a i n e a n d i t w a s w o rt h “tw e n ty to th i rtyd o l l a rs .” 45

A ppe l l an tevent ual l y a dm i t t ed i n t he i nt ervi ew t hathes aw t he c o n fro n ta ti o n w i th R i o sa ro u n d m i d n i g h t a n d th a t “ itw a so v e r d ru g s .” A ppe l l antdi d noti ni t i al l y i den t i f y t he ot hert w o pa rt i ci pan t s oft he att ac k b ut t hen st at ed one of t he m en w as nam ed “W al
- M art ” and the otheri ndi vi dual w as t he f r i end w ho br oughtt he cocai ne. Appel l antt hen t ol d Det ec t i ve Randol ph th a t th e re w a sn o ro b b e rya n d th a t “ i f a n y th i n g , [h e ] a s s a u l te d [R i o s ].” I m m edi at el y a f t ert hi s st at em en t , A ppel l ants ai d t hatt hi s “w asa dopet hi ng” and “he di dn’ tw antt o gi ve m e m y m one y. ” A ppe l l antt ol d Det ec t i ve Randol ph t hatheha d hi tRi osonc e o rt w i cew i t h a s t i ck. W hen D et ec t i ve Randol ph st at ed t hatRi os ’ s i nj ur i esw er e n otcons i st entw i t h t he us e ofa st i ck , A ppe l l ant st at ed t hatt he w ea pon h e had use d w asm or e a ki n t o a “ t w o- by- f our ” pi ec e o f
w ood. Appel l ants ai d t hathel eftaft ert he att ac k e nde d. A gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed A ppel l antf or aggr avat ed r obb ery and agg r avat ed as sa ul t . The i ndi ct m ents t at ed t hatA ppe l l ant di d t hen and t her e i nt enti o n a l l yorknow i ngl y, w hi l e i n t he cour se ofco m m i t t i ng t heftofpr ope rt y a nd w i t h i nt entt o obt ai n or m a i n ta i n c o n tro l o f s a i d p ro p e rty , c a u s e b o d i l yi n j u ryto a n o th e r, Rene Ri os , by hi t t i ng hi m w i t h a s t i ck , an d t he def end antus ed or e x h i b i ted a d e a d l yw e a p o n , to -w i t: a s ti c k , th a t i n the m a n n e r of i ts u s e o rin t e n d e d u s e w a sc a p a b le o fc a u s in g d e a t h o rs e r io u sb o d ily i nj ury. C ountt w o: an d i ti s f urt herpr es ent ed i n a nd t o s ai d c ourtt hatt he def end anti n t he coun t y ofT ar r antand st at e a f or es ai d on orab out t he 1 9th day ofM ay, 20 07 , di d i nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y cause6

bodi l y i nj ury t o ReneRi osby hi t t i ng hi m w i t h a s t i ck , an d t he def end antdi d us e o rex hi bi ta dead l y w ea pon d ur i ng t he c o m m i ss i o n o f t h e as sa u l t, to w i t: a s ti c k , th a t i n th e m a n n e r of i ts u s e o rin t e n d e d u s e w a sc a p a b le o fc a u s in g d e a t h o rs e r io u sb o d ily i nj ury. A f t era bench t r i al , t he courtf oun d A ppel l antgui l t y ofbot h aggr avat ed rob b e ry a n d a g g rav a ted a ss a u l t. T h e tri a l c o u rts e n ten c e d A p p e l l a n t t o thirty yea r s’ i m pr i so nm entf orbot h c onvi cti ons, w i t h t he se nt enc esr unni ng con cur r ent l y. I I I . Le galan d fac t uals uff i ci enc y c hal l eng e In h is f ir s tp o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e a tt r ia l w a sle g a lly and f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o pr ovet hathew as i n t he cou r seofco m m i t t i ng a t he f to rha d i nt entt o obt ai n a nd m ai nt ai n c ont r ol ofRi os ’ s pr ope rt y w hen he assaul t ed R i os. A . Legalsuff i ci ency st andar d ofrevi ew I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y of t he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on, w e v ie w a ll o ft h e e v id e n c e in t h e lig h tm o s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t io n in or dert o de t er m i ne w het heran y r at i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d hav e f ound t he e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jacks on v. V ir ginia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).7

The t r i alj udge , w hen si t t i ng a s t he so l e t r i eroff ac t , i s t he exc l us i ve j udge of t he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nes se s and t he w ei ghtt o begi ven t o t hei rt es t i m ony. Jo sep hv. S tate , 89 7 S . W . 2d 37 4, 37 6 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 1 99 5) . Thu s, w hen perf or m i ng a l ega l su f f i ci enc y r evi ew , w e m ay notr e- eva l uat e t he w ei ghtan d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e a n d s u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4S .W .3 d 7 3 5 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 3 1 (2 0 0 0 ). I n s te a d , w e “ d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e n e c e s s a ry in f e r e n c e sa r e re a s o n a b le b a s e d u p o n t h e c o m b in e d a n d c u m u la t iv e f o r c e o fa ll t he evi dence w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostfavor abl e to t he ver di ct . ” Hoop er v. S tate , 2 1 4S . W . 3 d 9 , 1 6

– 1 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) . We mu s tp r e s u me t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr eso l ve d a ny c onf l i ct i ng i nf er enc esi n f avo roft he p ro s e c u ti o n a n d d e fe r to th a t re s o l u ti o n . Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl

ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. B. Fact ualsuff i ci ency st andar d ofrevi ew W h e n rev i e w i n g th e f a c tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Nea l v. S ta te, 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 129 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W a tso n v. S tate , 204 S . W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 6) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi den ces upport i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s ss o w e a kt h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is8

c le a r lyw r o n g a n d m a n if e s t lyu n ju s to rw h e t h e r c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm in a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. L a n c o nv. S tate , 253 S. W . 3d 699, 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 20 4 S. W . 3d at 41 4– 15 , 41 7. To rev er se unde rt he se con d gr ound, w e m us t det er m i ne, w i t h so m e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he r e c o r d , t h a t t h e g r e a t w e i g h t a n d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e, t hough l e g a l l ys u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c ts th e j u d g m e n t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s f a c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t to overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e t h a t a c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r ong orm ani f es t l y unj us tsi m pl y beca us e w e w oul d havede ci ded di f f er ent l y. Id . W e m a yn o t s i m p l y s u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th efa c tfin d e r’s . John son v. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca i nv. S tate , 958 S. W . 2d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e ss the rec o rd c l e a rl yrev e a l s th a t a di f f er entr es ul ti s app r opr i at e, w e m us tde f ert o t he t r i alco urt ’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w ei ghtt o begi ven cont r adi ct ory t es t i m oni alevi den cebe ca us e r es ol ut i on o f th e c o n fl i c t “ o fte n tu rn s o n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f c re d i b i l i ty a n d d e m e a n o r. Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d at 8 . T h u s , u n l e ss w e co n c l u d e tha t i t i s n e c e ss a ry to c o rre c t m a n i fe s t i n j u s ti c e , w e m u s t g i v e d u e d e fe re n c e to th e fa c tfin d e r’s5 ... U nd er s ec t i on 31. 03, t hefti s def i ned as“ unl aw f ul l y a ppr opr i at [ i ng]

pr ope rt y w i t h i nt entt o de pr i ve t he ow nerofpr ope rt y. ” Tex. Pen alC odeA nn. § 3 1 .0 3 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 9 det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i onsco nce r ni ng t he w ei ghtan d cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t9. C . A ppl i cabl e l aw The St at e i s r equ i r ed t o pr oveev ery e l em entofan of f ens e b eyo nd a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. S ee Tex . Penal C ode A nn. § 2 . 01 ( V er non 20 03 ) . The pen al c o d e d e s c ri b e sro b b e ryu n d e r s e c ti o n 2 9 .0 2 a s , ( a) A pe r so n c om m i t s an of f ens e i f , i n t he cou r seofco m m i t t i ng t he fta sd e f i ne d i n Cha pt e r31 5 an d w i t h i nt entt o obt ai n or m ai nt ai n contr ol oft he pr opert y, he: (1 ) in t e n t io n a lly , k n o w in g ly , o rre c k le s s lyc a u s e sb o d ily i nj ury t o a not her ; or ( 2) i nt e nt i on a l l y ork no w i ng l y t hr e a t e nso rp l aces ano t heri n f ea rofi m m i nen tbodi l y i nj ury orde at h. Id . § 2 9 .0 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). Pena l co de se ct i on 29. 01 def i nest he phr as e “i n t he cou r seofco m m i t t i ng t heft ” as“ con duc tt hatoc cur s i n an at t em ptt o c om m i t , dur i ng t he com m i ss i on, ori n i m m edi at e f l i ght aft ert he attem p t o rcom m i ssi on of t hef t . ” S e ei d. § 2 9 .0 1 ( V e rno n 2 0 0 3 ). T h u s, p roo f of a co m p l e ted the ft is n o t re q u i red to e s ta b l i s h ro b b e ry . Wo lfe v. S tate , 917 S . W . 2d 270, 275 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.6 ... S e eCo l l i n s v. S tate , 800 S . W . 2d 267, 269 ( Tex. A pp . — H ous t on [ 1 4 t h D i st . ] 1990 , no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hatev i den ceofa cr edi t oras sa ul t i ng a debtorf ort he pur pose ofcol l ect i ng a debt w as suf f i ci ent t o suppo rtaggr avat ed ro b b e ryc o n v i c ti o n ). 10 1 9 9 6 ), cert. denied, 5 4 4U .S . 1 0 3 7 ; see al so Purser v. S tate , 902 S. W . 2d 641, 647 ( Tex. A pp. — El Paso 199 5, pet . r ef ’ d) ( st at i ng t hatt he ac t ualco m m i ss i on oft heft“i s nota pr er equ i si t e”f orr obbe ry, as t he “g r ava m en ofr obbe ry i s t he a s s a u l ti v e c o n d u c t a n d n o t th e th e ft” ), cert. denied, 5 2 5 U .S . 8 3 8 (1 9 9 8 ). U n d e r se c ti o n 2 9 .0 3 , a g g rav a ted rob b e ry o c c u rs w h e n a p e rso n co m m i ts rob b e ry a s d e fi n e d i n se c ti o n 2 9 .0 2 an d ( 1 ) c a u se s s e ri o u s b o d i l yin j u ry to a n o th e r o r (2 ) u s e so r e x h i b i ts a d e a d l yw e a p o n . S ee id . § 29 . 03. D . L e g a l s u ff ic ie n c ya n a ly s is I n t hi s ca se , t he St at e pr ovi ded evi den ceofA ppe l l ant ’ s ac t s w hi l e i n t he cour se ofcom m i t t i ng t hef t . Th e S t at e of f er ed A ppel l ant ’ s r ecor ded i nt ervi ew , w hi ch r eve al ed t hatA ppe l l antha d c om pl et ed a d r ug t r ans ac t i on w i t h Ri os ear l i ertha t dayand t hatRi os m ay orm ay not have pai d hi m f ort he cocai ne. A l t hough A ppe l l antdeni ed r obbi ng Ri os , A ppe l l ants t at ed t hatt he con f r ont at i on w as“ ove rdr ugs , ” t hatheass aul t ed Ri osw i t h a “ t w o- by- f our ” si z ed st i ck , an d th a t R i o s “ d i d n ’t w a n t to g i v e [h i m ] [h i s ] m o n e y .” 6 Th e S t at e al so of f er ed t est i m ony f r om t he sol e w i t ness of t he a ttack, Ri os , w ho c onf i r m ed t hatA ppe l l antw ass pea ki ng t o hi m w hen hew ashi tf r om7 ... R io sw a sn o ta b le t o id e n t if yt h e o t h e rin d iv id u a lsw h o a t t a c k e d h im

f r o m b e h in d b u tc o n f ir m e d t h a tA p p e lla n tw a sp r e s e n ta n d d id n o tw a r n o rh e lp hi m w hen t he att ac k h app ene d. 11 b e h in d b yt w o in d iv id u a ls . R io s s t a t e d t h a t a sh e w a sru n n in g a w a y , h e c o u ld f eel A ppel l antand t he t w o ot herm en 7“ sc r ea m i ng on e t o a not her ” and “ pul l i ng, t ryi ng t o get t he bi l l f ol d” l oca t ed i ns i de of Ri os ’ s bac k poc ke t . Al t hough Ri os s t a t e d t h a tA p p e lla n tw a s u n a b le t o o b t a in t h e w a lle t , h isa lle g e d a c t sin att em pt i ng t o gr ab Ri os ’ s w al l etw er e s uf f i ci entt o e st abl i sh hew asi n t he cou r seofcom m i t t i ng t heftan d ha d i nt entt o obt ai n a nd m ai nt ai n c ont r ol oft he p ro p e rtyu n d e r th e s ta tu te . S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § § 2 9 .0 1 , 2 9 .0 2 ; Wo lfe , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 2 7 5 , Hu ertav. S tate , No. 13- 05- 00272

- CR, 2007 W L 22 15 95 2, at*2 ( Tex . A pp. — C or pus C hr i st i D ec. 12 , 20 07 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , not desi gnated f orpubl i cat i on) ( st at i ng t hat“t he j ur y coul d r at i onal l y i nf er th a t a p p el l antw as att em pt i ng t o st eal [ t he vi ct i m ’ s] w al l et , al t hou gh he w as p re v e n te d fro m d o i n g s o b y[th e v i c ti m ’s ] fl i g h t” ). V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n a l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, t he t r i al cou rtco ul d ha ve f ound bey ond a r ea so nab l e d oubtt hat , “ i n t he cou r seof com m i t t i ng [ a] t heft ” and “w i t h i nt entt o obt ai n [ and ] m ai nt ai n c ont r ol ” of Ri os ’ s pr ope rt y, A ppe l l anti nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y c aus ed bodi l y i nj ury t o Ri os w h e n h e u s e d a d e a d l yw e a p o n to h i t R i o s . S eeTex. Pen alCode Ann.12

§ § 2 9 .0 2 (a)( 1 ), 2 9 .0 3 (a)( 2 ). W e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e is leg a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o s u p p o rt th e tri a l c o u rt’sj u d g m e n t. See Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl

ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. E . F a c t u a l s u ff ic ie n c ya n a ly s is A p p e l l a n t c o n te n d sth a t th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l y i n s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt t h e c o n v ic t io n b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e o n ly p r o d u c e d o n e w it n e s s w h o a c t u a lly
w i tn e s s e d th e i n c i d e n t, R e n e R io s , th e v i c ti m . A p p e l l a n t u rg e sth a t R i o s ’s t est i m ony w as “specul at i ve atb est ” and hi s m em or y had “si gni f i cantgaps” t hat a f f e c t e d h is c r e d ib ilit y . R io s a d m it t e d t h a t h e h a d t r o u b le r e m e m b e r in g c e rt a in event s; how ever , he w as abl e t o descr i be det ai l s sur r oun di ng t he a ttack, i n c l u d i n g h i s tri p to th e s to re w i th A p p e l l a n t, h i s b ri e f co n v e rsa ti o n w i th A ppe l l antpr i ort o t he att ac k, t he se ns at i on oft he obj ec tt hathi thi s hea d, an d th e “ p u l l i n g ” a t h i sb i l l fo l d p o c k e t a sh e fl e d fro m t h e a tta c k . See Agui l ar v. S tate , 468 S . W . 2d 75, 77 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1971 ) ( st ati ng tha ta con vi ct i on m a yb e s u p p o rt e d b yt e s t im o n yo fo n lyo n e w it n e s s ). Itw a st h e s o le r esponsi bi l i t y oft he t r i al j udg e as t r i eroff actt o bel i eve ornotbel i eve R i os. R i o s’s te sti m o n yan d A p p e l l a n t’ s s tate m e n t t h a t w e re a d m i tted i n to evi den cean d pl aye d f ort he cou rt , t oge t herw i t h Det ec t i ve Randol ph’ s and O f f i cerFi ncher ’ s t est i m oni es, al l ow ed t he t r i al courtt o det er m i ne t hat A ppel l ant ’ s conduct i n part i ci pat i ng i n t he at t a c ka n d i n hi s att em ptt o t ake13

Ri os ’ s bi l l f ol d f el l w i t hi n t he st at ut ory de f i ni t i onsofac t i ng “ i n t he cou r seof c o m m i t t i ng t he f t ” an d “w i t h i nten t t o ob t ai n [ an d] m ai ntai n co ntr ol o f. . . pr opert y. ” S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § § 2 9 .0 1 , 2 9 .0 2 (a ). V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n a neutr al l i ght, w e cannot say t hatt he evi dence i s so w eak t hatt he t r i al court ’ s det er m i nat i on t ha t A ppel l antcom m i t t ed agg r ava t ed r obbe ry t hr ough hi s ac t i onsi n t he cou r seofco m m i t t i ng a t heftan d
w i t h i nt ent t o obt ai n and m ai nt ai n con t r ol of pr ope rt y i s cl ea r l y w r on g or m a n if e s t lyu n ju s t . W e a ls o c a n n o ts a yt h a tt h e c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly o u tw ei gh s t he ev i de nc e su pp ort i ng t he co nv i cti on t ha tt he t r i al co u rt’s d e term i n a ti o n i s u n j u st. See L anc on , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 . W e th e refo re ho l d th a t th e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su pportt he t r i alco urt ’ s j udgm en t . B ec aus e t he evi den cei s bot h l ega l l y a nd fac tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t, w e m u st o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. I V . D oubl e J eop ardy I n hi s se con d poi nt, A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by c o n v i c ti n g h i m fo r b o th a g g rav a ted rob b e ry an d a g g rav a ted a ss a u l t. T h e S tate con ce dest hatt he t r i alc ou rtv i ol at ed doubl e j eop ar dy p r ohi bi t i ons , an d w e agr ee.14

A . A ppl i cabl e l aw Th e D oub l e Jeopar dy C l ause o fthe U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut i on pr ovi des t hat no pe r so n s hal l bes ubj ec t ed t o t w i ceha vi ng l i f e o rl i m b i n j eop ar dy f ort he sam e of f ense. U . S . C onst . am end. V . G ener al l y, t hi s cl ause pr ot ect s agai nst ( 1) a se con d pr os ec ut i on f ort he s am e o f f ens e a ft erac qui tt al , ( 2) a se con d p ros e c u ti o n for the sa m e o ffen se afte r co n v i c ti o n , a n d ( 3 ) m u l ti p l e p u n i sh m e n ts f o r th e s a m e o ffe n s e . Bro wnv. O hio , 4 3 2 U. S . 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 , 9 7 S . Ct . 2 2 2 1, 2 2 2 5 (1 9 7 7 ); Ex p arte Cavazos , 203 S . W . 3d 333, 336 ( Tex. Cri m . A pp. 20 06 ) . To deter m i ne w het herbot h of f enses ar e t he sam e und er ( 3) , w e m ust exam i ne t he el e m e n t s oft he appl i cabl e st at ut es t o det er m i ne w het hereach st at ut e “r equi r es pr oof ofa f actw hi ch t he ot herd o e s n ot . ” Blockbur ger v. United S tates , 28 4 U . S . 29 9, 30 4, 5 2 S . C t . 18 0, 18 2 ( 19 32 ) . U nder Blockbur

ger, w e a r e t o f ocu s on t he st at ut ory el em ent s f ound i n t he cha r gi ng i n s tru m e n ts . Bi

g o nv. S tate , 2 5 2 S .W .3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Pa rr i shv. S tate , 8 6 9 S .W .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 3

– 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A dou bl e j eopar dy vi ol at i on m ay be r ai sed f or t he f i r st ti m e o n appeal
w h e n t h e u n d is p u t e d f a c t ss h o w t h e d o u b le je o p a r d yv io la t io n isc le a r ly app a r e n t o n t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d a n d w h e n e n f o r c e m e n t o f u s u a l r ul es of p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lts e rv e sn o l e g i ti m a te s ta te i n te re s ts . G o nza lez v. S tate , 8 S .W .3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 3 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). F o rc o n v ic t io n sin v o lv in g m u lt ip le15

p u n is h m e n t sf o rt h e s a m e o f f e n s e , t h e d o u b le je o p a r d yv io la t io n isc le a r ly a p p a r e n to n t h e f a c e o ft h e re c o r d w h e n t h e re c o r d a f f ir m a t iv e lys h o w sm u lt ip le p u n i sh m e n ts res u l ti n g fr o m the c o m m is sion o f a s i n g l e ac t t h a t vi o l a ted tw o s e p a ra te p e n a l s ta tu te s , o n e o f w h i c h i ss u b s u m e d i n th e o th e r. S ee Cervantes v. S tate , 8 1 5 S .W .2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1 1 1 0 (1 9 9 2 ); Ga rf

i a s v. S tate , N o. 02

- 06

- 00 39 8- C R , 20 08 W L 24 04 26 8, at *1 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h Ju ne 1 2, 2008 , pe t . gr ant ed) ( m em . op. , not d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ); Perezv. S tate , N o. 02- 06- 00225

- CR, 2007 W L 2 7 4 4 9 1 4 , a t * 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth S e p t. 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f’d ) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). W hen a def endan thas been pr osecut ed and convi ct ed i n a si ngl e cr i m i nal ac t i on oft w o or m or e of f ens es t hat con st i t ut e t he sa m e of f ens e, i n vi ol at i on of doubl e j eop ar dy, t he r em edyi s t o app l y “t he m os ts er i ousof f ens e t es t . ” The m os ts er i ousof f ens e i s t he onef orw hi ch t he gr ea t es t se nt enc e w asas se ss ed; i n t hose cases, t he m ostser i ous of f ense i s r et ai ned and t he l ess s er i ous of f ense i ss e t a s i d e . Ex p arte Cavazos , 203 S. W . 3d a t338. B . A n a ly s is I n t hi s ca se , A ppe l l ant di d notr ai sea doubl e j eop ar dy o bj ec t i on du r i ng t he ben ch t r i al ; how eve r , a vi ol ati on i s cl earon t he f ac e o ft he r ec or d. See G onzalez , 8 S. W . 3d at6 43. The St at e r el i ed on A ppe l l ant ’ s ac tofhi t t i ng Ri os8 ... A ppe l l antdi d notr ai set hi s di sc r epa ncyi n hi s ar gum ent ; how eve r , t he

r epo rt er ’ sr e c o r d r e v e a l st h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rto r a l l yp r o n o u n c e d a s e n t e n c e of t hi rt y year s f ort he a g g ravat ed r obb ery and t en year s f ort he aggr avat ed a ss a u l t; h o w e v e r, the w ri tten j u d g m e n ts sta te th a t b o th s e n ten c e s a re fo r t h i rt y 16 w i t h a st i ck t o pr ove t he aggr avat ed assaul t of f ense and partoft he aggr avat ed ro b b e ryo ffe n s e . S eeTex. Pen al C od e Ann. § 22. 01( a) ( 1) ( V er non Supp . 200 8) , §§ 29. 02( a) ( 1) , 29. 03( a) ( 2) . A cc ordi ng t o t he l ang uag e i n t he i ndi ct m ent , f orthe aggr avat ed assaul t , t he S t at e had t o pr ove A ppel l antcaused bodi l y i nj ury a nd “u se d or exh i bi t ed a d ea dl y w ea pon”( “t o w i t : a st i ck ”) an d f or t he aggr avat ed r obb er y char ge, t he S t at e had t o pr ove t hi s sam e actoccur r ed i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a th e ft. S e ei d. § 2 2. 01 ( a) ( 1) ( def i ni ng assaul tas i n te n ti o n a l l y , k n o w i n g l yo rre c k l e s s l yc a u s e [i n g ] b o d i l yi n j u ryto a n o th e r), § § 2 9 .0 2 (a )(2 ) (d e fi n i n g ro b b e ry ), 2 9 .0 3 (a )(2 ) (d e fi n i n g a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry ); s e eals o, Na

ji v. S tate , N o. 02- 06- 002 60- C R, 2007 W L 126687 2, at*2 ( Tex. A pp— FortW ort h Apr i l 26, 2007 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or publ i ca t i on) ( st at i ng t hat “t her e i s no r obbe ry w i t hout an as sa ul t ”) . Thus , t he t w o conv i ct i ons vi ol at ed dou bl e j eopar dy pr ohi bi t i ons because t he t w o of f enses const i t ut e t he sam e of f ense. W e m us tretai n t he con vi ct i on f ort he m os ts er i ousof f ens e a nd s ett he o th e r a s i d e . Ex p arte Cavazos , 2 0 3 S .W .3 d a t3 3 7 . T h e j u d g m e n t sc o n t a in i denti cal sent ences, 8s o w e r et ai n t he agg r ava t ed r obbe ry c onvi ct i on a ndyear s. T he C ourto fC r i m i nal A ppeal s has s t at ed t hatw hen t her e i s a conf l i ct

bet w een t he or al pr ono uncem entand th e w ri t t en j udg m ent , t he or al pr ono uncem ent contr ol s and t he j udg m ent m ustbe r ef or m ed t o confor m t o t hat s e n te n c e . S e eT

h o mp so nv. S tate , 108 S. W . 3d 287 , 290 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 3 ). B e c a u s e o u r d i s p o s i ti o n re s o l v e s th i s d i s c re p a n c y , w e w i l l n o t re fo rm t he j udg m ent s. 17 s e n te n c e a n d v a c a t e th e a g g ra v a te d a s s a u l t c o n v i c ti o n a n d s e n te n c e . S ee Ma rti n ez v. S tate , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ho l d i n g tha t, w hen bo t h of f enses car ry t he sam e puni shm ent , t he appel l at e courtm ay st r i ke e i th e r c o n v i c ti o n ). W e re ta i n th e a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ryc h a rg e b e c a u s e i t a p p e a rs fi rs t i n th e i n d i c tm e n t. S ee Na ji, 2007 W L 126687 2, at*3 ( ci t i ng E xp a rte Cravens , 80 5 S. W . 2d 79 0, 79 1 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 91 ) ) ( r et ai ni n g the fi r st cou nti n t he i ndi ct m ent ) . W e s us t ai n A ppe l l ant ’ s se con d poi ntand m odi f y t he ju d g m e n tt o re f le c to n lya c o n v ic t i o n f o ra g g r a v a t e d ro b b e ryw it h a d e a d ly
w e a p o n a n d th e s e n t e n c e o f th i rtyy e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t. S e eNa ji, 2 0 0 7 WL 12668 72, a t*3. V . C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d A p p e l l a n t’ s f i rst po i n t an d su sta i n e d h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, w e m odi f y t he t r i alcourt ’ s j udgm entt o vaca t e t he conv i ct i on and s ent enc e f or agg r ava t ed as sa ul tw i t h a de adl y w ea pon a nd r ef l ec tonl y t he con vi ct i on f or aggr avat ed r obb er y w i t h a d e adl y w eapon , w i t h t he sent ence oft hi rt y year s’18

c o n fi n e m e n t. W e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’sj u d g m e n t a sm o d i fi e d . S eeTe x. R. A p p . P ro c . 4 3 .2 (b ). P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: GA RD N ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M C C O Y, J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t6, 2009