Court Opinion

ID: 9918483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 11:10:37.717031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:43.044749
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00270-CR

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

GABRIEL LAMANDO JOHNSON,                         §     APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §     JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §     SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                            OPINION
          Gabriel Lamando Johnson appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. In four issues,
Appellant challenges the admissibility of his cell site location information (CSLI), the
sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of his suppression and directed verdict motions. We
affirm.

                                          BACKGROUND
          One night when Razzoo’s Cajun Café manager Jonathan Delapiedra exited the restaurant
at around 1:32 a.m., a black man wearing a ski mask approached and forced him back inside at
gunpoint. The man took Delapiedra’s cell phone and money, forced him to open the safe, tied
his hands behind his back, took the money and other items from the safe, and left in a white
passenger car. Delapiedra eventually freed himself and alerted the authorities. The next day,
Delapiedra used his Google account to determine his cell phone’s last known location and
provided the coordinates to the police. Tyler Police Detective Keven Fite drove to the location
in Flint, which was an alley in a residential neighborhood, and saw a black man at one of the
residences with access from the alley loading a large amount of clothing into a white Lexus
passenger car. Before backup officers could arrive, the man left in the Lexus. Fite spoke with
Appellant’s two children at the residence. They identified the man as Appellant and could not
account for his whereabouts on the night of the robbery.
       Detective Fite conducted a database search and learned that Appellant was a parolee.
From Appellant’s parole officer, Fite obtained Appellant’s phone number. When Fite contacted
Appellant’s girlfriend, she provided the same phone number for Appellant. Neither Appellant’s
girlfriend, with whom he occasionally stayed, nor his mother, with whom he resided, could
provide an alibi for him at the time of the robbery. When Fite attempted to call Appellant, a
recording stated that the number was changed or disconnected.
       Detective Fite requested and obtained a warrant to search Verizon Wireless’s records
regarding Appellant’s phone number, alleging that they contained evidence of the robbery,
evidence tending to show a particular person committed the robbery, or implements used in the
robbery. Specifically, the warrant authorized a search for the following information:

            • All customer/subscriber information, including any listed addresses, telephone
               numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, names, addresses, any other
               customer identifying information, mobile handset or device identifiers/serial numbers
               (MEID, ESN, IMSI, IMEI, MAC IP address), activation date and deactivation date,
               and location device was purchased if applicable.

            • Device Purchase Information. This is specifically to include the Date, Time and
               Location of where the device or any pre-paid refill cards were purchased.

            • Any email addresses associated with the account. This is to specifically include
               Google Gmail addresses associated with any Android device associated with this
               device or any email associated with an iPhone and/or iTunes account associated with
               this device that is currently on file and stored in the normal course of business of
               CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS.

            • Call detail records, including detailed information in reference to all known outgoing
               and incoming calls associated with the account, dates and times calls were made, and
               duration of all calls made or received. This is to include any other pertinent call detail
               records including special features codes, or any other codes that are maintained in the
               normal course of business for CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON
               WIRELESS, of any CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS
               cellular numbers identified in the course of the investigation. In addition to voice
               call, this would also include any detail records showing text messages, MMS
               messages, or data activity. In the event the requested Call Detail Records contain
               other CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS customer
               numbers, identified as either incoming or outgoing calls, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,
               LLP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS will provide subscriber information to the specific
               numbers identified.

            • Cell site information, to include all known cell towers associated with outgoing and
               incoming calls (Call Detail Records). This information is to include any sector

                                                       2
                 information, if known, cell site location, and any other related material that would be
                 necessary to identify the location and sector in reference to the cell site information
                 associated with the call detail records. In the event text messages, MMS messages,
                 LTE and Data activity including IP session and destination addresses that were
                 produced are also available with cell site information, the information would be
                 included in this request.

             • Cell Site locations for all CELLCO PARTENERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON
                WIRELESS Cell Sites, sector information, including Azimuth headings, in the
                regional market associated with the requested cell site information.

             • Location information, to include any estimated or known Longitude and Latitude of
                the cellular device’s current location, or approximate location, information received
                by cell tower(s) in reference to direction and distance from the tower a device may be
                located (timing and triangulation information). Radio Frequency signal strengths,
                direction, and transmission information. The geographical constraints of location
                information will be limited to the United States. Location information can be in the
                form of historical records. Specific to CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA
                VERIZON WIRELESS, this would include any reports of device activity that would
                include the approximate latitude and longitude of the device at the time of the
                activity, direction and distance from the tower, and other location related information
                commonly referred to as an RTT, EVDO, ALULTE, and Levdort report. This further
                includes any other report similar in nature. For real-time location information this
                would include the E-911 automated email system, providing emails to the affiant
                every 15 minutes with the estimated latitude and longitude of the device.

             • All text message and/or MMS messages currently stored in the normal course of
                business for CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, LLP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS, to
                include any cloud services which allow for the long term storage of both voicemails
                and SMS/MMS messages.

Fite’s supporting affidavit provided the following facts:

         Affiant, Detective Keven Fite, is a police officer for the City of Tyler Police Department, and
         as such is a Peace Officer in and for the State of Texas. Affiant is currently assigned to the
         Criminal Investigations Division, Major Crimes Unit. Affiant holds a Master Peace Officer
         Certificate and Special Investigator Certificate issued by the Texas Commission on Law
         Enforcement. Affiant has over ten years of law enforcement experience and has received
         training in various criminal law enforcement aspects.

         On November 19, 2018, Affiant was notified to respond to an aggravated robbery investigation
         that occurred during the early morning hours at Razzoo’s Cajun Café, located at 7011 S
         Broadway Ave, Tyler, Smith County, Texas. Tyler Police were called to the restaurant in
         reference to a commercial panic alarm at approximately 02:28am. Officers arrived and
         contacted restaurant manager Jonathan Delapiedra. Delapiedra reported that as he was exiting
         the restaurant around 1:32am, an unknown suspect approached him and exhibited a handgun.
         Delapiedra was taken back into the restaurant at gunpoint. The suspect told Delapiedra to take
         him to the money if he wanted to go home tonight. Once in the management office, the
         suspect took Delapiedra’s personal cell phone. He instructed Delapiedra to open the safe
         where money was removed. The suspect then tied Delapiedra’s hands behind his back and left
         him in the office. Delapiedra was eventually able to cut himself free and contacted police.

                                                       3
Delapiedra later provided his wireless cellular account information (AT&T; account number:
[account number]; target number: [phone number]). I attempted to call Delapiedra’s cellular
device. The call went straight to voicemail, indicating that the cellular device may have been
turned off.

Razzoo’s security camera recordings were reviewed, along with Delapiedra’s physical
description of the suspect. The suspect is described as a black male, approximate height of
5’10-6’00, approximate weight of 200 lbs., wearing a black puffy/bubble jacket; black pants;
black shoes; black gloves; black ski mask.

Affiant and Detectives with the Major Crimes Unit contacted local businesses in the area to
review any outside store security video surveillance. Contact was made with Target, located at
7003 S Broadway Ave. Security video recordings were provided of the outside parking lot
area, which captured the south end of the Target Parking lot and also faced towards Razzoo’s
property. The video was reviewed and compared to the timeline of events obtained from
Razzoo’s security video.

The suspect in the aggravated robbery is believed to be driving a white passenger car. At
11:33pm (Sunday night) a white passenger car is observed entering the Target parking lot from
W South Town Dr. It drives through the parking lot and parks on the south end near the tree
line that separates the Target parking lot and Razzoo’s parking lot. The white passenger car
parks, facing Razzoo’s.

At 11:54pm, the white passenger car leaves the parking lot (traveling north through the parking
lot). It is believed that it then travel [sic] east on W South Town Dr, turning south on S
Broadway Ave, then west onto Thigpen Dr. The white passenger car re-enters the Target
parking lot and returns to the same parking spot at 11:56pm.

At 12:19am, the suspect is observed exiting the vehicle, on the driver’s side, and walks
towards Razzoo’s.

At 1:32am, the [sic] Delapiedra exits the restaurant.

At 1:33am, the suspect and Delapiedra re-enter the restaurant.

At 1:45am, suspect is seen exiting the restaurant.

At 1:46am, the suspect is observed re-entering the white passenger car. The suspect vehicle is
last seen exiting the Target parking lot, traveling east on Thigpen Dr. towards S Broadway
Ave.

On November 20, 2018, Affiant received a phone call from Delapiedra. Delapiedra was able to
access his cellular device information through his online account. He advised that the device
was last synced on November 19 at 1:54am. According to the “Find your phone” information,
the cell device’s last known location showed to be in the area of County Road 149 (New
England Rd), Flint, Smith County, Texas. Delapiedra [sic] was able to provide me with the last
known longitude and latitude coordinates; 32.1869745,-95.325358. The area where these
coordinates return is a residential area, in between County Road 149 and Stoneridge Dr. (these
roads run parallel to one another). I responded to this area. I noted that the information
provided on the cellular device’s last known location (drop point) was directly behind a duplex
residence, address of 4140 and 4142 Stoneridge Dr., Flint, Texas. In front of 4142 Stoneridge,
I observed a white Kia passenger car bearing Texas License Plate: HGD0290. In front of 4140
Stoneridge, I observed a white Lexus passenger car bearing Texas License Plate: BLL6049. I
observed a black male subject carrying items to the white Lexus. I observed that the subject’s

                                                4
physical description (approximate height and weight) matched what Delapiedra had described
of the suspect. While waiting for additional detectives to arrive in the area, the subject and the
white Lexus passenger car left the residence. Contact was made with Dequavion Johnson and
Quanisha Johnson. They identified the subject that left in the white Lexus passenger car as
Gabriel Johnson. D. Johnson did not know what Johnson does for work. D. Johnson did not
want to provide me with Johnson’s contact number. He said that Johnson occasionally stays at
the home, but also lives in Henderson, Texas. Q. Johnson said that she did not see Johnson
Sunday evening, but says that she saw him the following day.

I conducted an in-house database search and located information on Gabriel Lamando
Johnson. Johnson’s Texas Driver License information shows his height to be 6’00 and weight
of 192lbs. A Criminal History Search was done and showed Johnson to have the following
convictions: Burglary of Habitation; Poss Marij <=5lbs > 4oz; (x2) Man/Del CS PG 1 >= 4G <
200G; (x2) Evading Arrest or Detention; Tampering/Fabricating Physical Evidence. I learned
that Johnson is currently on parole unit 2029. I contacted the Tyler Parole Office and spoke to
Johnson’s assigned officer, Officer J. Burks. I learned that the phone number on file for him is
(936)-553-6513.

I attempted to call the number provided for Johnson and did not get an answer. An audio
recording indicated that the number had been changed or disconnected.

I contacted Erika Mallard. Mallard is the mother of Dequavion Johnson and Quanisha Johnson.
She is Gabriel Johnson’s significant other. She provided me Johnson’s contact number: (936)-
553-6513. She said that Johnson stays in the home off and on. I told Mallard that I attempted
to call that number and it is no longer working. Mallard was aware that the police had been to
her house. She said she talked to Johnson earlier to ask him what was going on. She said that
he told her he did not know, but he would find out. Mallard said that she was not sure if
Johnson stayed at the residence Sunday night; “He’s in and out a lot.” She did not know if
Johnson works. Mallard said that she had to pick up her youngest daughter up from her sister
on Sunday evening and got home around 9:00pm. He was not home at that time. Mallard said
that the white Lexus passenger car belongs to Johnson.

I contacted Johnson’s mother, Essie Madkins. Madkins said that Johnson resides at her home,
located at 6501 CR 3181 E. Garrison, Texas. She said that she last saw him on November 18
around 2:00pm. When she returned home around 8:00pm, he was not there and she has not
seen him since.

On November 21, I attempted to call Johnson and did not get an answer. An audio recording
indicated that the number had still been changed or disconnected. Verizon Wireless was
contacted and I was advised that they are the carrier for this wireless number.

I made phone contact with the resident of 4142 Stoneridge Dr., who was identified as Melvin
Massenburge. He stated that the white Kia passenger car, bearing Texas License Plate:
HGD0290, belongs to his significant other, Shatrica Williams. I asked him about seeing the
white Lexus at his neighbor’s house on the night of November 18. He stated that he arrived
home around 11:30pm, but could not say with complete certainty that the Lexus passenger car
was there.

The information being requested is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and is
furthermore considered evidence of the crime, Aggravated Robbery.

                                                5
The search of Appellant’s and Delapiedra’s CSLI showed that Appellant’s phone was present in
the general area of Razzoo’s from November 18 at 11:33 p.m. until November 19 at 1:48 a.m.,
and both phones traveled south from Tyler and then west between 1:48 and 1:54.
       Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery. He pleaded “not guilty”
and filed a pretrial motion to suppress all evidence seized by the police—including his phone’s
CSLI—alleging that the police violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 19 of the Texas
Constitution; and Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. At a hearing on the
motion, Appellant argued that the supporting affidavit failed to articulate sufficient probable
cause to search his phone records because the affidavit contained no (1) evidence that a phone
was associated with or used during the robbery, (2) mention of his phone except that the affiant
tried to call him, (3) “boilerplate language” stating that everyone has a cell phone and carries it,
or (4) statement that the affiant suspected the phone contained evidence of the robbery. The trial
court granted the motion regarding the phone’s contents, email addresses associated with the
account, texts, and MMS messages, and denied the motion regarding the CSLI.
        At trial, Appellant objected to the CSLI’s admission, and the trial court overruled the
objection. At the close of the State’s case in chief, Appellant moved for a directed verdict,
arguing that the State failed to present a prima facie case.       The court denied the motion.
Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty,” found two enhancement paragraphs “true,” and
assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life. This appeal followed.

                                        PROBABLE CAUSE
       In Appellant’s first issue, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress regarding the CSLI because Detective Fite’s affidavit did not establish probable cause.
In his second issue, he argues that the court erred in overruling his objection to the CSLI’s
admission for the same reason.
Standard of Review
       We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard.
Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d
323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress
is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43, 48

                                                 6
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We
give almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of historical facts, especially if those
determinations turn on witness credibility or demeanor and review de novo the trial court’s
application of the law to facts not based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Neal v.
State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). At a suppression hearing, a trial court is the
exclusive trier of fact and judge of the witnesses’ credibility. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278,
281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Accordingly, a trial court may choose to believe or disbelieve all or
any part of a witness’s testimony. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the
facts. State v. Kurtz, 152 S.W.3d 72, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, a failure by a trial court
to analyze or apply the law correctly constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id.
Applicable Law
       Generally, under the Fourth Amendment, the State must obtain a warrant supported by
probable cause before acquiring a phone’s CSLI. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. —, 138
S. Ct. 2206, 2221, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018). There is no implied warrant requirement in Article
I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, but to comply with Section 9, a search for CSLI must be
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances after considering the public and private
interests at stake. Holder v. State, 595 S.W.3d 691, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). A search for
CSLI, when conducted by the state in its traditional crime-fighting role, and absent exigent
circumstances or another recognized law enforcement need, must be supported by probable
cause to be reasonable. Id.
       In determining probable cause, reviewing courts must consider the totality of the
circumstances. Angulo v. State, 727 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Although
probable cause requires more than mere suspicion, it requires far less evidence than that needed
to support a conviction or even a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Middleton v.
State, 125 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). For probable cause to exist, there must be a
fair probability of finding inculpatory evidence at the location being searched. Marcopoulos v.
State, 538 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). A mere desire to learn the movements or
location of a suspect is not probable cause to obtain CSLI from his cell phone service provider.
Stocker v. State, 656 S.W.3d 887, 906 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, pet. granted).
The facts contained in the affidavit must evince a fair probability that the police will find

                                                 7
inculpatory location information indicating that a specific person committed a particular offense.
Id.
        Reviewing courts have a duty to ensure a magistrate had a substantial basis for
concluding that probable cause existed. State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349, 354 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012). We give great deference to a magistrate’s probable cause determination, including an
implicit finding of probable cause. State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268, 271-72 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011). Even in a close case, we give the probable cause determination great deference to
encourage police officers to use the warrant process. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d at 354. When in
doubt, we defer to all reasonable inferences the magistrate could have made. Rodriguez v. State,
232 S.W.3d 55, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A reviewing court should not invalidate a warrant
by interpreting the affidavit in a hyper-technical rather than commonsense manner. Id. at 61
n.25; McLain, 337 S.W.3d at 271-72.
Analysis
        Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the CSLI
evidence because Detective Fite’s affidavit fails to establish a nexus between his phone and the
robbery. Citing Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 18.0215(c)(5)(B) 1 and State v.
Baldwin, 664 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 777, 215
L. Ed. 2d 47 (2023), 2 he argues that the affidavit was required to contain sufficient facts to

         1
           Article 18.0215 is titled “Access to Cellular Telephone or Other Wireless Communications Device” and
provides in pertinent part as follows:

            (c) A judge may issue a warrant under this article only on the application of a peace officer. An
            application must be written and signed and sworn to or affirmed before the judge. The
            application must:

            ....

            (5) state the facts and circumstances that provide the applicant with probable cause to believe
            that:

            (A) criminal activity has been, is, or will be committed; and

            (B) searching the telephone or device is likely to produce evidence in the investigation of the
            criminal activity described in Paragraph (A).
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 18.0215(c) (West Supp. 2023).
        2
           In Baldwin, the court of criminal appeals held that to support probable cause to search a cell phone, an
affidavit must contain facts and reasonable inferences establishing a nexus between the phone and the offense. State
v. Baldwin, 664 S.W.3d 122, 123, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 777, 215 L. Ed.
2d 47 (2023).

                                                           8
establish probable cause that “a cellphone search” was likely to produce evidence in the robbery
investigation. However, the search at issue here was not of Appellant’s cell phone but of
Verizon’s records of his phone’s CSLI. To support this type of search, an affidavit need not
establish a nexus between the phone and the offense, but, because we live in a society in which
our phones go wherever we go, facts establishing a nexus between the phone’s owner and the
offense may suffice in some instances. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217-18 (“A cell phone—
almost a feature of human anatomy—tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner . . . .
[People] compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time.”) (internal quotation and citation
omitted); see also Stocker, 656 S.W.3d at 908 (affidavit that contained no facts establishing
nexus between appellant’s phone and murder but linked appellant to murder weapon was
sufficient to support CSLI search).
       Because the search here was not of Appellant’s phone but of Verizon’s CSLI records, to
support the probable cause determination in this case, the affidavit was required to contain
sufficient facts from which the magistrate could reasonably determine there was a fair
probability that those records contained CSLI evidence that would implicate Appellant in the
robbery. See Marcopoulos, 538 S.W.3d at 600; Stocker, 656 S.W.3d at 906. We conclude that
it did. The totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit—including the theft of
Delapiedra’s phone by the robber, Appellant’s presence at the last known location of
Delapiedra’s phone the day after the robbery, Appellant’s conformity with the description of the
robber, Appellant’s car’s conformity with the description of the robber’s car, the inability of the
people with whom Appellant lived to account for his whereabouts at the time of the robbery,
Appellant’s parole officer’s and girlfriend’s statements providing his phone number, and the
recording stating that Appellant’s phone number was changed or disconnected when Detective
Fite tried to contact him—gave the magistrate a substantial basis to find probable cause that
Verizon’s records would reveal CSLI evidence implicating Appellant in the robbery by showing
his phone was located at or near Razzoo’s at the time of the robbery and near Delapiedra’s phone
during and shortly after the robbery. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2218; Stocker, 656 S.W.3d at
908. Therefore, the search did not violate Appellant’s federal or state rights against unreasonable
searches, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the CSLI or
overruling his objection to its admission. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2221; Holder, 595
S.W.3d at 704. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s first and second issues.

                                                9
                                         EVIDENTIARY SUFFICIENCY
       In Appellant’s third issue, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for
directed verdict. In his fourth issue, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
       The Jackson v. Virginia 3 legal sufficiency standard is the only standard that a reviewing
court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a
criminal offense that the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brooks v.
State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Legal sufficiency is the constitutional
minimum required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to sustain a
criminal conviction. See Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 315-16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2686-87, 61 L. Ed. 2d
560 (1979); see also Escobedo v. State, 6 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet.
ref’d). The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge is whether any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; see also Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the verdict.
See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Johnson, 871 S.W.2d at 186. This requires the
reviewing court to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations, because the jury is
the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. Brooks,
323 S.W.3d at 899; see Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789. A “court faced with a
record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it does not
affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of
the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793.
       “A criminal conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence.” Merritt v. State,
368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct
evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish
guilt. Id. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the combined and
cumulative force of all the evidence. Id. at 526. A challenge to the denial of a motion for

       3
           443 U.S. 307, 315-16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2786-87, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).

                                                        10
directed verdict is essentially an evidentiary sufficiency challenge. Rice v. State, 195 S.W.3d
876, 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d.).
         The sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the offense as defined by a
hypothetically correct jury charge. See Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997). Such a charge would include 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 liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the
defendant is tried.” Id.
         To prove Appellant guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in this case, the State was
required to prove that he, while committing theft of property, intentionally or knowingly
threatened Delapiedra or placed him in fear of imminent bodily injury or death and used or
exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West
2019).
Analysis
         Appellant argues that the evidence, when the CSLI evidence is excluded, is insufficient to
support a finding that he is the person who committed the robbery. In so arguing, he emphasizes
that the police found no evidence associated with the robbery when they searched his residence,
and they failed to locate Delapiedra’s phone. Despite these evidentiary shortcomings, we
conclude that the identity evidence in this case, which includes the CSLI evidence, is sufficient.
         The jury heard evidence that (1) a person driving a white passenger car parked near
Razzoo’s at 11:33 p.m. on November 18, (2) Appellant’s cell phone was in the general area of
Razzoo’s at that time, (3) the driver exited the car and walked toward Razzoo’s at 12:19 a.m. on
November 19, (4) Delapiedra exited Razzoo’s at about 1:32 and was forced back inside by the
robber at 1:33, (5) the robber was a black man who stood 5’10” to 6’2” tall and weighed around
200 pounds, (6) the robber took Delapiedra’s phone, (7) the robber exited Razzoo’s at about
1:45, (8) the driver walked back to his car and left at 1:46, (9) Delapiedra’s and Appellant’s
phones traveled south away from Tyler and then west during the period from 1:48 to 1:54, (10)
Delapiedra’s Google account indicated that his phone last connected to its network at 1:54 in an
alley behind Appellant’s girlfriend’s duplex in Flint, (11) Appellant was seen at his girlfriend’s
duplex on November 20 loading a large amount of clothing into his white passenger car, (12)
Appellant matched the description of the robber, (13) Appellant was unreachable at his phone

                                                 11
number after the police began their investigation, (14) Appellant missed his parole hearing
scheduled about two weeks after the robbery, and (15) Appellant falsely identified himself when
the police stopped him to execute the arrest warrant. Considering the combined and cumulative
force of all the evidence and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
conclude that the jury was rationally justified in finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Appellant is the person who committed the aggravated robbery in this case. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; see also Brooks, 323
S.W.3d at 899; Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s third and
fourth issues.

                                                  DISPOSITION
         Having overruled Appellant’s first through fourth issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.

                                                                JAMES T. WORTHEN
                                                                   Chief Justice

Opinion delivered January 10, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                   (PUBLISH)

                                                         12
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          JANUARY 10, 2024

                                         NO. 12-22-00270-CR

                               GABRIEL LAMANDO JOHNSON,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0594-19)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.