Court Opinion

ID: 9941819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 07:12:33.319548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:05.130072
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed February 15, 2024

                                        In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                     __________

                                  No. 11-22-00318-CR
                                      __________

                    LUIS HERNANDEZ, JR., Appellant
                                          V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 118th District Court
                            Howard County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 16195

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      A grand jury indicted Appellant, Luis Hernandez, Jr., for the murder of his
ex-girlfriend, Maria Soto. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1) (West Supp.
2023). Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and, after a jury trial, he was convicted
of the charged offense.      Upon Appellant’s election, the trial court assessed
Appellant’s punishment at life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division, and sentenced Appellant accordingly. In a single
issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
We affirm.
                              I. Factual Background
      At the time of the murder, Soto resided in Big Spring with her daughter,
Chelsea Fernandez, and Fernandez’s boyfriend, Donald Barber. Appellant had also
resided with them in the past. When Soto and Appellant ended their relationship—
which occurred several weeks before she was murdered—she told Appellant that he
could no longer reside with them and that he should not attempt to contact her. The
locks to Soto’s residence were also changed after Appellant moved out.
      Barber testified that he was concerned about Appellant’s behavior and
fixation with Soto. Barber captured screenshots of certain Facebook postings made
by Appellant, some of which were threatening. These postings referred to how
Appellant had been “wronged,” who Soto might be dating, and his intention to “get
back [at Soto].” According to Barber, Appellant was angry because Soto was dating
another person. The day before Soto’s murder, Barber copied another Facebook
posting made by Appellant that contained an image of two knives, one of which law
enforcement later determined was the weapon that was used to murder Soto.
      On the day of Soto’s murder (July 20, 2021), Soto drove Barber to work—he
was scheduled to work the nightshift at Whataburger. Barber asked Soto if she could
pick him up when his shift ended at 11:00 p.m.; Soto agreed. Before doing so, and
around that time, Soto took Fernandez to work. However, Soto never arrived to pick
up Barber. Barber attempted to call Soto several times, but she never answered;
eventually, Barber’s mother picked him up from work and drove him home. Barber
returned home shortly after midnight and found Soto lying on the living room floor;
she had been stabbed several times and was dead. He immediately called 9-1-1 and
reported Soto’s death.

                                          2
      Detective Kevin King with the Big Spring Police Department was the lead
investigator at the crime scene. Although Soto’s body was discovered on the living
room floor, Detective King believed that Soto had been murdered on the living room
couch because of the amount of blood splatter on the couch, the amount of blood
which had seeped into the couch’s cushions, and the blood splatter located behind
the couch. No other blood evidence was found in the house and there was no
evidence of forced entry. Detective King also testified that Soto’s cell phone could
not be located and appeared to be the only item that was missing from the residence.
      Based on statements made by Barber concerning the nature of Soto’s
relationship with Appellant and other information accumulated by law enforcement
during their investigation, a warrant was obtained to search Appellant’s residence in
Big Spring. Officers with the Big Spring Police Department executed the warrant
and seized a set of knives and their sheaths that were found in the living room close
to where Appellant slept; DNA sample swabs from the seized knives and Appellant’s
bathroom were also collected.
      Dr. Luisa Florez, a forensic pathologist, performed Soto’s autopsy and noted
that there were thirty-three stab wounds and lacerations on Soto’s body; she
characterized Soto’s murder as “overkill” or a crime of passion. Dr. Florez testified
that the knives (and their configuration) that were found in Appellant’s residence
were consistent with the stab wounds and other lacerations found on Soto’s body.
Dr. Florez also collected a sample of Soto’s blood for DNA analysis and comparison.
      Yahaira Romero, a forensic scientist with the Texas Department of Public
Safety, performed DNA testing and comparison analysis on the knives and sheaths
that were recovered from Appellant’s residence. Two knives and their sheathes were
tested for DNA profile identification. The first knife tested revealed a relatively low
likelihood that Soto and Appellant were contributors to the blood stain that was
found on the blade, although there was a relatively high link between Appellant and
                                          3
the stain that was found on the sheath. However, test results indicated a much
stronger DNA profile identification on the blood stains found on the second knife.
The second knife, identified as WW2, contained three blood stains which were tested
for DNA profile identification, two for which were informative. The test results for
these two blood stains—stain no. 1 was located on the knife’s blade and handle spike
and stain no. 2 was located on the knife’s handle—indicated there was a likelihood
that Soto was a contributor to the DNA profile.
      Appellant was interviewed by law enforcement investigators on several
occasions and multiple statements were obtained. Sergeant John Haynes, a detective
with Big Spring Police Department, interviewed Appellant twice. During these two
interviews, Appellant explained that Soto’s DNA was found on his person because,
on the day she was murdered, Soto had gone to his residence, they hugged, and
secretions of Soto’s menstrual blood had accumulated underneath his fingernails
during their encounter. However, Appellant later admitted to lying about this
encounter and video footage from a nearby camera showed that this alleged
encounter never occurred.
      When Appellant testified, the State addressed certain inconsistencies in
Appellant’s statements.     Appellant admitted to providing false statements to
investigators about his whereabouts on the day of the murder, although he denied
killing Soto. Appellant also conceded that he had a significant criminal history—
felony convictions for theft, human trafficking, burglary of a habitation, and
stalking. Appellant admitted that he harassed Soto in a threatening manner, as he
did with other stalking victims. Appellant testified that he had been stalking Soto,
following her, and calling her repeatedly since their separation. Appellant conceded
that he was jealous because Soto was dating another person and he wanted to know
the identity of Soto’s current boyfriend so that he could confront him.

                                          4
      Appellant was aware that he was not welcome at Soto’s residence. Yet, on
the day of the murder, he went there anyway. According to Appellant, he was
driving by Soto’s house when he saw her vehicle moving toward him. Appellant
made a U-turn and attempted to catch up to Soto before she went inside her home.
He parked in front of her home, looked through a window, and saw her sitting on a
couch holding her cell phone. Appellant testified that he then knocked on the front
door and asked Soto if he could speak with her. In doing so, he attempted to open
the front door, but it was locked. Soto told him that she did not want to speak with
him and that she intended to call the police. Appellant then left Soto’s residence and
drove around for a while to calm down because he was upset and “in tears”; he later
drove to a local convenience store.
      Detective King reviewed video footage from the same local convenience store
that Appellant drove to after leaving Soto’s residence. The video footage shows
Appellant entering this store at approximately 12:16 a.m. on the night of Soto’s
murder, placing something in a trash can, and then walking directly to the restroom.
      Texas Ranger Tod Reed obtained and executed a search warrant for
Appellant’s vehicle. During the search, the back of a cell phone with a “zombie
sticker” affixed to it was found inside the vehicle. Fernandez identified the piece of
Soto’s cell phone that was recovered from Appellant’s vehicle. Fernandez testified
that she had given this cell phone to Soto and had affixed the “zombie sticker” to the
inside back piece of the phone which holds the phone’s battery. According to
Fernandez, Soto always kept her phone with her.
      Ranger Reed also testified about a cell phone ping that was recorded near the
time of Soto’s murder. According to Ranger Reed, Appellant’s cell phone and
Soto’s cell phone pinged simultaneously off a tower at or near a certain location;
their cell phones pinged in the same location and at the same time—11:28 p.m. This
indicated that their cell phones were in close proximity to each other on the night of
                                          5
the murder. It was determined that this particular location was several blocks away
from Soto’s residence and was the last known location of Soto’s cell phone.
                II. Standard of Review – Sufficiency of the Evidence
      In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient
to support his conviction. Specifically, Appellant contends that evidence of identity
is lacking and does not support the jury’s finding of guilt.
      We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, regardless of
whether it is framed as a legal or factual sufficiency challenge, under the standard of
review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89
(Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, we review
all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Zuniga v. State, 551
S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010).
      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict requires that
we consider all of the evidence admitted at trial, including evidence that may have
been improperly admitted. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to
the factfinder’s credibility and weight determinations because the factfinder is the
sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight their testimony is to be
afforded. Winfrey, 393 S.W.3d at 768; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Clayton, 235
S.W.3d at 778. The Jackson standard is deferential and accounts for the factfinder’s
duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;
Zuniga, 551 S.W.3d at 732, Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. We may not reevaluate the
                                           6
weight and credibility of the evidence to substitute our judgment for that of the
factfinder.   Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Therefore, when the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the
factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that
determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525–26
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d
9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
      Because the standard of review is the same, we treat direct and circumstantial
evidence equally. Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; Hooper,
214 S.W.3d at 13.      It is not necessary that the evidence directly proves the
defendant’s guilt. Rather, circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence
in establishing the guilt of an actor and can, without more, be sufficient to establish
his guilt. Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). A guilty verdict does not require that every fact must
directly and independently prove a defendant’s guilt. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Instead, the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to
support the conviction. Id. Therefore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence,
we must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d
227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015).
                                 III. Analysis
      As relevant to this appeal, a person commits the offense of murder if he
intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. PENAL § 19.02(b)(1).
Identity is an essential element of any criminal offense; the State must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed, or was a
participant in the commission of, the charged offense. Johnson v. State, 673 S.W.2d
190, 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); see Ruiz v. State, 631 S.W.3d 841, 850–52 (Tex.
                                          7
App.—Eastland 2021, pet. ref’d) (identity is an essential element of murder that
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt). In this case, Appellant complains that
the evidence of identity that connects him to the murder is, at best, circumstantial.
However, identity may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. Earls v.
State, 707 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
      The record shows that the State adduced a variety of evidence, some of which
or taken together, could arguably be characterized as circumstantial. Despite this,
we are mindful that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence and
can, alone, provide a sufficient basis to establish a defendant’s guilt. Carrizales, 414
S.W.3d at 742 (citing Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). Here, the evidence presented
included, but is not limited to: (1) Appellant’s admission that he stalked Soto and
that he was present at Soto’s residence on the night of the murder—which was close
in time to when the murder was committed; (2) Appellant’s admission that he
observed Soto sitting on the couch in her living room in the same location where the
physical evidence suggested that she was murdered; (3) Appellant’s ongoing
jealousy of and obsession with Soto after he and Soto separated; (4) Appellant’s
threatening messages to Soto and similar social media postings; (5) Appellant’s
attraction to and proclivity for using knives; (6) Appellant’s social media posting
that contained an image of two knives, one of which law enforcement later
determined was the weapon that was used to murder Soto; (7) the DNA evidence
found on one of the knives that belonged to and was retrieved from Appellant’s
residence, DNA testing of which indicated that Soto was a contributor to the DNA
profile; (8) Dr. Florez’s conclusions that the multiple stab wounds inflicted on Soto’s
body were consistent with the design of one of the knives found at Appellant’s
residence; (9) the only item missing from Soto’s residence was her cell phone, a
portion of which was found in Appellant’s vehicle after the murder; (10) Appellant’s
motive for taking Soto’s cell phone was because he was obsessed with her, stalked
                                           8
her, and wanted to learn the identity of her new boyfriend so that he could confront
him; (11) Appellant’s cell phone and Soto’s cell phone pinged simultaneously in the
same location shortly before the murder; and (12) the inconsistencies between
Appellant’s statements to law enforcement and his trial testimony.
      Considering the foregoing evidence, we conclude that a rational jury could
have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative force and effect of
this evidence, as well as all other evidence presented at trial, circumstantial or
otherwise, was sufficient to find that Appellant was the person who murdered Soto.
See Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232; Murray, 457 S.W.3d at 448; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at
13.
      Although Appellant argues that there are “significant gaps” in the State’s
evidence, the jury was free to accept or reject Appellant’s arguments and version of
events. Inconsistent or untruthful statements by Appellant, of which there were
many, may be considered by the jury as affirmative evidence of guilt. See Gear v.
State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 747–48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d
195, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The jury, as in all cases, was free to judge the
credibility and weight of all of the evidence presented, including Appellant’s
testimony and the statements that he made to law enforcement during his interviews
with them. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. Indeed,
and in light of Appellant’s inconsistent statements and suspicious actions and
conduct, the jury was entitled to reject and disbelieve all or a portion of Appellant’s
version of events.
      If the evidence conflicts, we must presume that the jury resolved any conflicts
in favor of the verdict, and we defer to the jury’s determination in that regard.
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. It is the jury’s duty to resolve
conflicts in the evidence, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences
from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at
                                          9
778. Therefore, we resolve any conflicting inferences, if supported by the record, in
favor of the jury’s determinations. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Merritt, 368 S.W.3d
at 525–26; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.
      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we
conclude that the State adduced sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of
fact could have logically inferred and found beyond a reasonable doubt that
Appellant committed the offense of murder as charged in the indictment.
Accordingly, because legally sufficient evidence supports Appellant’s conviction for
the charged offense, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.
                             IV. This Court’s Ruling
      We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                               W. STACY TROTTER
                                               JUSTICE

February 15, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                         10