Court Opinion

ID: 9770789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:21:38.01988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:20.820110
License: Public Domain

OPINION
DUNN, Justice.
A jury found appellant guilty of robbery, found the allegations of two enhancement paragraphs to be true, and assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for 60 years. The issue in this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for robbery by threat. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1989). We affirm.
On April 28, 1990, William G. Davis was working as the manager of a store and washateria called Goodland Food Mart. To prepare for the next shift, Davis removed money from the cash register and counted the money at a small table adjacent to the register. As he counted the money, Davis saw appellant walk into the front door and move toward the beer cooler.
Appellant selected a can of beer from the cooler and walked up to the register. Davis observed that appellant had on only blue jeans and that appellant’s eyes were “red as fire” and that he seemed to be “under the influence of something.” The money was out of the register, near a brown towel. Appellant stood directly in front of the register, leaned toward the register, with his face very close to Davis, looked directly at Davis, and stated, “We are going to do it like this; give me all the money, put the money in the towel; and I’m serious.” Davis asked appellant if he were sure about what he was saying, and appellant said: “[P]ut the money in the towel, and we are going to do it like this, and I’m serious.” During this time, Davis reached behind him, attempting to get a metal pipe. He testified that he was afraid of appellant because he felt that appellant would cause him bodily injury. He again asked appellant, “[A]re you sure of what you are saying?”; appellant then “giggled real funny and grab the bill and run out the place and run out the place behind him and he went down the street just giggling and hollering.”
*616Houston Police Officer C.E. Turner testified that he was a patrol officer and was the first law enforcement officer to arrive on the scene. Turner reported that Davis told him only that appellant left the store without paying for a beer. Turner classified the report as a theft under $20. Davis testified that he told Turner about the threatened robbery.
In his sole point of error, appellant claims the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support a conviction for robbery by threat because the record fails to show that appellant threatened or placed the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. The appellate court may not sit as a thirteenth juror and disregard or reweigh the evidence. Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). If there is evidence that establishes guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the trier of fact believes that evidence, this Court is not in a position to reverse the judgment on sufficiency of evidence grounds. Id. at 867; Glass v. State, 761 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.). The jury, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The jury may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’ testimony. Sharp, 707 S.W.2d at 614. A jury may believe a witness even though his testimony is contradicted. Id.
Appellant does not dispute the theft of a can of beer, but contends that evidence adduced by the State was insufficient to show that he threatened or placed the complainant in fear of bodily injury or death. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1989). In order to prove the offense of robbery, the accused must have made actual or threatened overtures of violence to the person of another, such that the threatened or injured party was put in fear. Green v. State, 567 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Jones v. State, 467 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). The fear must be likely to induce a reasonable person to part with property against his will. Franklin v. State, 702 S.W.2d 241, 244 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no pet.).
We note that an element of the crime of robbery, “places another in fear of imminent bodily injury,” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1989) (emphasis added), differs from an often compared, but vastly dissimilar element for the crime of assault, “threatens another with imminent bodily injury,” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(2) (Vernon 1989) (emphasis added). The general, passive requirement that another be “placed in fear” cannot be equated with the specific, active requirement that the actor “threaten another with imminent bodily injury.” Under the “placed in fear” language in section 29.02 of the Texas Penal Code, the factfinder may conclude that an individual perceived fear or was “placed in fear,” in circumstances where no actual threats were conveyed by the accused. Wilmeth v. State, 808 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1991, no pet.) (jury may find requisite fear from menacing glance and a hand gesture, even where no verbal threats were made).
The dissent contends that reasoning in the case of Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), is dispositive of the present case. In Devine, the defendant had formerly been married to the complainant. After the couple divorced, the defendant called the complainant on the phone numerous times, demanding money and threatening him and his wife and children with bodily harm or death if he failed to give her money. The complainant reported these threats to the police, who wired the complainant with a body microphone for a meeting with the defendant at a restaurant. The defendant was arrested and charged with robbery under section 29.-02(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code. A jury *617convicted the defendant, and her conviction was affirmed on appeal.
On petition for discretionary review, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the defendant’s threats in Devine were either made in the past or pertained to future conduct; the threats were not such as to place the complainant in fear of imminent bodily harm. The court indicated that the defendant told the complainant once, at an earlier meeting, that she was carrying a gun in her purse. Devine, 786 S.W.2d at 269. However, the transcripts of recordings of the defendant’s conversations with the complainant prior to and at the restaurant meeting revealed no evidence of threats or conduct that would place the complainant in fear of imminent bodily injury or death at the restaurant when the money transfer took place. Id. at 270 n. 3. The Devine opinion noted that “[a]t no time during the encounter [at the restaurant] did appellant take any overt action, such as displaying a weapon.” Id. at 271. There was no evidence that the defendant carried a gun at the restaurant or that she made any threatening movement with her purse. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Devine that the defendant’s conduct constituted coercion, as defined in section 31.01 of the Penal Code, as: “a threat, however communicated, to inflict bodily injury in the future on the person threatened or another ... as distinguished from robbery.” Devine, 786 S.W.2d at 270 (emphasis added). The Devine opinion noted: “An offense involving threats of ‘future’ bodily injury was intended to be theft, not robbery. Ergo, consistently with this apparent intent [by the legislature] we construe ‘imminent’ bodily injury in § 29.-02(a)(2) ... to require a present, not a future threat.” Devine, 786 S.W.2d at 270.
When considering whether a reasonable person would be placed in fear, we note that appellant’s conduct in the present case was intensely and immediately focused on inducing Davis to part with the money. Testimony showed that appellant clearly articulated and reiterated his intent to take the money. The jury, as factfinder, was free to believe Davis’ testimony that he was afraid of appellant and that Davis reached for a weapon to defend himself from appellant. The jury could have concluded that Davis reached for the pipe because the words and actions of appellant placed Davis in fear of being imminently harmed. See Cranford v. State, 377 S.W.2d 957, 958-59 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) (conduct of accused must give rise to fear).
Appellant’s point of error is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
O’CONNOR, J., dissents.