Court Opinion

ID: 9389740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 07:09:31.930598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.289111
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-22-00058-CR

         CHARLES WADE BRIGGS, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 336th District Court
                 Fannin County, Texas
             Trial Court No. CR-20-27896

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

           On the night of July 21, 2017, at least three men forced their way into the home of Gina

and Johnnie Jones, and while one of the men subdued Gina, the other men subdued Johnnie and

shot him at close range in the back of his head. Johnnie survived the attempt to murder him. A

Fannin County jury convicted Charles Wade Briggs of attempted1 murder,2 burglary of a

habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault,3 and engaging in organized criminal

activity.4 In this appeal,5 Briggs challenges his conviction for engaging in organized criminal

activity. He contends (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that he

engaged in organized criminal activity, (2) that the trial court erred when it failed to give an

accomplice-witness instruction, and (3) that the evidence does not corroborate the testimony of

the accomplice witness. Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient to support Briggs’s

conviction, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a judgment of acquittal for the

charge of engaging in organized criminal activity.

1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.01.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1). Briggs was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for attempted
murder.
3
 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (d)(2). Briggs was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for burglary of
a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault.
4
 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02(a) (Supp.). Briggs was sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment for
engaging in organized criminal activity.
5
 In his appeal in our cause number 06-22-00056-CR, Briggs appeals his conviction for attempted murder, and in his
appeal in our cause number 06-22-00057-CR, Briggs appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent
to commit aggravated assault.
I.          The Evidence at Trial

            The evidence at trial showed that sometime after 10:00 on the night of July 21, 2017,

Gina Jones was in her kitchen when she was knocked unconscious by an unknown intruder.

When she woke up, she was laying on the floor on her back, with a man she knew as Josh on top

of her holding her down with his right hand on her throat. Gina heard another man go to her

door and tell a third man to come in. Those two men, one of whom had a gun in his hand, went

to the back of the Joneses’ house. Although Gina could not identify the two other men, she

described the one with the gun as taller with dark hair and the other as shorter with curly hair. A

short time later, Gina heard the gun discharge. The two men came running by, told Josh that he

was supposed to keep her knocked out, and told him to get her cell phone. When the men were

gone, Gina called 9-1-1 and reported that her husband had been shot by a group of men. Gina

testified that, sometime before the shooting, Johnnie received a telephone call from a person who

said he was Josh’s dad.

            Ralph Belen, a Fannin County deputy, was dispatched to the home at 10:40 p.m. and was

met at the door by Gina. She led him to the living room where Johnnie lay on his back. Belen

testified that Johnnie was shot in the back of the head, moaned, and was in and out of

consciousness.6

            Texas Ranger Brad Oliver conducted the initial investigation. He testified that he did not

recover a shell casing but that the evidence showed that a hollow-point bullet was used. He

testified that he did not recover the firearm used and did not determine the type of firearm or

6
    At the time of trial, Johnnie lived in an institution and was unable to walk or care for himself.
caliber used but that, based on the injuries Johnnie sustained and the blood spatter evidence, he

thought the firearm was a handgun.

       Oliver recovered Johnnie’s cell phone and found several text messages, the last of which

was received at 7:25 p.m. on July 21 from a person identified as “Josh.” After Oliver determined

that the telephone number for “Josh” belonged to Joshua Wade Briggs, Briggs’s son, Gina

positively identified Josh from a photograph array as the person who held her down. On July 23,

Oliver went to Josh’s house to take a recorded statement.

       In his statement, Josh claimed he lost his cell phone three days earlier but gave Oliver the

same telephone number as the one associated with “Josh” in Johnnie’s cell phone. Josh said that

he knew Johnnie as “Chip” and that Johnnie supplied him with methamphetamine and

marihuana. He claimed that he had not gone anywhere on July 21 and that the last time he went

to Johnnie’s house was on either July 19 or 20. Josh maintained that Gina lied if she said that he

was at Johnnie’s house. Josh provided information to Oliver that he was familiar with Johnnie’s

house and that he knew how to enter through the back door. Oliver found that significant

because Gina told him that the men invaded their home through the back door.

       Oliver took Briggs’s recorded statement that day. Briggs said that he got a telephone call

at work on July 21 and was told that Josh left on his motorcycle. Briggs tried to call Josh even

though he said Josh had lost his cell phone. He maintained that he left work a little after 8:00

p.m. and that Josh was home when he arrived about forty-five minutes later. Briggs said he

would not let Josh leave after that and that he went to bed around one or two the next morning.
He denied that he knew where Josh got his methamphetamine and gave Oliver his cell phone

number.7

        After taking those statements, Oliver obtained two photographic arrays—one that

contained the photograph of Briggs and one that contained the photograph of Briggs’s brother,

Dallas Shane Briggs (Shane). Oliver explained that he obtained one for Shane because Shane

was the president of the local chapter of an outlaw motorcycle gang called the “Kinfolk.” Gina,

however, was not able to identify either Briggs or Shane as the other men who invaded her

home. Oliver acknowledged that neither Briggs nor Josh was associated with the “Kinfolk”

gang.

        When asked on cross-examination if he had any evidence that Briggs was at Johnnie’s

house on the night of July 21, Oliver maintained that Josh confessed that his father was at

Johnnie’s house during Josh’s trial six months earlier. Oliver pointed out several excerpts in the

transcript of Josh’s testimony from that trial placing Briggs at Johnnie’s house that night:

               A.      [By Oliver] . . . [T]he answer, it says, We –Shane and I went to the
        front door. I don’t know where the other car went – where the other car, where
        they were. They – they came in the house, and I don’t know where they parked at
        or anything like that.

                So he’s talking about his dad was in another vehicle. There was – two
        vehicles left their house, and he’s talking about that car. And I believe there’s one
        other place here. Just give me a second. I’ll find it.

        ....

               A.     . . . . Line 8, question was asked by the State, “Okay. Where was
        your dad during all of this?”

7
 Oliver also interviewed Sapphire Owens, Josh’s then-girlfriend, and Elizabeth Briggs, Briggs’s wife, who gave
information consistent with that given by Josh and Briggs.
            Joshua Briggs: “I don’t remember.           It all happened so fast. I don’t
       remember him even being in the house.”

               “Okay. Your dad did go with you to the residence; is that correct?”

               “He was in a different vehicle.”

               “But he did go to the location?”

              [“]We – Shane and I went to the front. I don’t know where the other car
       went – where the other car, where they were. They came in the house.[”]

              Let me look here and see. I thought there was one other place, sir. Here
       we go. On Page 32, sir, question number – Line 23. It says, “Okay” – that was a
       question asked by the State. “Okay. You indicate your father was in another
       vehicle, but he – but he was at the” – “he was at the residence?” Question.

               “I never seen him come in the house. I never seen him at the residence,
       but he got in the car that Mac was in.”

The cell phone records of Josh, Briggs, and Gina from July 18, 2017, through July 27, 2017,

were introduced into evidence. Elizabeth Buhay, an analyst with the telecommunication research

analysis unit of the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that those records showed that,

on July 20 at 11:03 p.m., Briggs made a call on his cell phone to the telephone owned by Gina

and that the call lasted one minute and five seconds. Buhay testified that the records showed that

Briggs’s cell phone exchanged calls with Josh’s cell phone eight times between 5:45 p.m. and

7:59 p.m. on July 21 and that it exchanged calls with Shane’s cell phone four times between 8:01

p.m. and 8:21 p.m. on July 21. In addition, Buhay testified that there was no contact between

Briggs’s cell phone and Shane’s cell phone after July 21. Buhay testified that the records

showed that Josh made a cell phone call to Gina’s cell phone at 10:14 p.m. on July 21.
           David Thompson, the commander of the criminal investigation division of the Fannin

County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO), subsequently took over the investigation. He testified that,

although they suspected Josh, Briggs, and Shane were involved in the shooting based on Gina’s

and Johnnie’s statements, the consistency of the phone records with their statements, and the

inconsistencies between Josh’s and Briggs’s statements and the phone records, there was not

enough evidence to make an arrest. This changed on August 17, 2020, when Sapphire Briggs,

Josh’s wife at the time, came to the FCSO to make a complaint on an unrelated matter.

Thompson testified that, when he interviewed Sapphire that day, she provided information about

the shooting that was not known to the public and that only people involved would know.

Thompson also testified that her statement was consistent with those of Gina and Johnnie and

was consistent with the phone records.8

           Based on that new evidence, Thompson obtained arrest warrants for Josh and Briggs.

After Josh was arrested, Briggs fled into the woods as deputies pulled into his driveway. With

the aid of prison dogs, Briggs was located behind a house. After his arrest, Josh was interviewed

and again repeatedly denied that he had any knowledge of the shooting of Johnnie.9 Briggs was

also interviewed and repeatedly denied that he had any involvement, that he knew Johnnie, that

he was at Johnnie’s house, and that he made the telephone calls.

8
    Before Sapphire came forward, Shane died in a motorcycle accident in 2019.
9
 Robert Williams, an investigator with the FCSO, also interviewed Josh because he was familiar with him from
other cases. In that interview, Josh repeatedly denied that he was at Johnnie’s house, that he knew Johnnie, or that
he had any knowledge about the incident. Williams also interviewed Briggs, who also repeatedly denied that he was
at Johnnie’s house, that he knew Johnnie, or that he had any knowledge about the incident. Williams knew Josh
because Josh had some theft cases and was a confidential informant in a few narcotics cases. He also testified that
Briggs helped the FCSO recover a large amount of property stolen by Josh.
       Thompson testified that Josh was charged with attempted murder because Johnnie was

shot in the head from point-blank range, which indicated they intended to kill him. Josh was also

charged with burglary with intent to commit an aggravated assault and with engaging in

organized criminal activity.    He opined that the organized criminal activity charge was

appropriate because there was evidence that three or more people conspired to commit a crime

and at least three were inside the residence when Johnnie was shot.            He testified that

investigators had not definitively determined who pulled the trigger but knew that Josh and two

other people were in the house. Thompson testified that in October 2021, Josh admitted that he

was at Johnnie’s house and that he was involved, named one other person involved, and

indicated that Briggs was at Johnnie’s house at the time of the shooting.

       On cross-examination, Thompson testified that Johnnie said that, before the shooting, he

received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as Josh’s father and threatened

him that, if he continued to sell drugs to his son, there would be hell to pay. Thompson

considered “hell to pay” to be a threat, but also agreed that it could mean that Johnnie would go

to jail. Thompson testified that he did not know (1) whether Briggs had a gun on the night of

July 21, 2017, (2) whether Briggs shot Johnnie, (3) whether Briggs ordered someone to shoot

Johnnie, or (4) whether Briggs went inside Johnnie’s house that night. He testified that Josh’s

confession placed Briggs at Johnnie’s house, if not inside.

       Thompson concluded from Sapphire’s statements, and from the statements of Briggs’s

daughter, Logan Briggs, that Briggs was at the scene and that Briggs organized and solicited the

incident. Thompson opined that the telephone records confirmed Johnnie’s statement that he
received a call from Josh’s father, contradicted Briggs’s statement that he was at home at the

time of the incident, and contradicted Josh’s original statement that he had lost his cell phone

before the incident.

            Sapphire testified that she married Josh on April 19, 2019, and that they had been

together for five or six years when they married. She was close to all of Josh’s family, and she,

Josh, his parents, and his grandmother all lived in homes on the same pasture in Honey Grove.

Sapphire testified that Josh got involved in drugs in high school and that he had a problem with

methamphetamine.

            She remembered that, on the night of July 21, 2017, Josh was “freaked out” about

Johnnie, who was his drug dealer. Josh was scared about something to do with Johnnie and

drugs. Josh told his father, who then called Johnnie and afterward called Shane. Shane then

came to Briggs’s house with three or four members of his biker gang.10 After they arrived, they

talked to Josh and Briggs about the situation, then they got ready outside. The women were told

to stay inside.11 Sapphire could not hear their conversation but could see them gathering their

weapons, which she said consisted of guns and a wooden stick. Sapphire’s understanding was

that they were going to scare Johnnie so he would leave Josh alone. She described their

demeanor as fairly calm and determined. Sapphire testified that, once it started getting dark,

Josh, Briggs, Shane, and the people Shane brought with him left the house. She remembered that

Josh and Briggs were in a truck and that the rest were on motorcycles.

10
     Sapphire testified that Shane’s biker gang was a violent gang and that everybody in the family knew it.
11
  Sapphire testified that she, Briggs’s wife (Liz), his mother (Mary), Josh, and Sapphire’s child (Kaydence) were in
the house.
       After a while, the men returned. Sapphire testified that Josh was freaking out, laid on top

of her in a chair, and tried to tell her what happened but could not because he was crying. Then

Briggs and Shane came in, and Shane explained to them what happened and told them they could

not tell anybody about it. He said that his group did not play around and that, if anybody said

anything, they would come for them, their family, and everyone they cared about, including their

mom, sister, brother, and children. He said that they would kill everyone.

       Although Shane said that, Sapphire testified, Briggs agreed with everything he said and

said that Shane was not kidding and that they had to be careful. Then Briggs said that somebody

would probably come around because a telephone call was indicated on the victim’s cell phone

before the incident happened. They said they all needed to be on the same page on what to say

when someone showed up. Briggs came up with the story that they were to tell—that they were

all home all night and did not leave. Sapphire remembered that Shane had an empty shell casing

that he showed them and said, “This is what happens to drug dealers that sell drugs to kids.”

       Sapphire testified that, later that night, Josh told her what happened. He told her (1) that

he was instructed to hold the lady down in the front room, (2) that Shane and Briggs went to the

back room, (3) that a couple of other people came through the back door, and (4) that Johnnie

was shot in the head. A couple of days later, a Texas Ranger came by, and everyone told him

what they had been instructed to say. She testified that, when the topic randomly came up in the

following years, Briggs talked about how they got away with it and did not get caught.

According to Sapphire, Briggs was bragging, without remorse or shame. Sapphire testified that

it came up when she threatened to leave Josh, and Briggs told her that she knew a lot and made
sure that she would not say anything. However, the last time she left, Briggs told her that they

knew how to kill someone and that the same thing could happen to her.

         Johnnie testified that, in July 2017, he received a telephone call from a man who said he

was Josh’s dad and asked if he was selling drugs to his son. Although Johnnie denied selling

drugs to his son, the man said that he was “going to send somebody to take care of [him].” On

the night of the shooting, Gina tried to warn him because they had already jumped her, then three

men rushed at him. He testified that he fought back until he got tired, then they held him down

and the dad looked at him and told him, “[W]hen I called you . . . I told you I would send

somebody to take care of you.”12

         Josh testified that he did not recall if he used methamphetamine on the day of the

incident. He claimed that he probably went riding on his father’s motorcycle and that Shane was

at the house when he got back. According to Josh, Shane noticed he was high, pulled him

behind a shed, and threatened to blow his head off if he did not tell Shane where he got the dope.

Since Shane had a gun, Josh told him that he got it from Johnnie. While they were behind the

shed, some of Shane’s friends showed up, and they and Shane had a conversation in the

driveway.

         Josh also testified that, at some point, he and Shane left the house in a car, but he did not

remember anybody else leaving. When they got to Johnnie’s house, he went to the back door,

knocked, and was let in by the lady. Shane then pushed him down and knocked the lady down,

and when he got back up, Shane threw him on the lady and told him to hold her. Then the other

12
 Johnnie testified that, as a result of the shooting, he had about five percent use of his limbs, still had parts of the
bullet in his brain, was not able to walk, and resided in a nursing home.
bikers ran through the back door to the other end of the house, and he heard a gunshot. He

assumed Shane pulled the trigger.

       Josh testified that, when they returned to Briggs’s house, Shane and the bikers told

everyone that they were never there, and if anybody said they were, they would come back and

kill everyone, including the children. Josh maintained that Briggs was sitting with his family and

was shaken up.

       On direct examination, Josh maintained that he never saw Briggs at Johnnie’s house and

that he did not remember seeing him before he left his house. He maintained that, at his trial, he

said he did not know if Briggs was there and that he never saw him. He denied that he testified

that he saw Briggs get in the car with a man known as “Mac.” On cross-examination, Josh

agreed (1) that Briggs was at his house before he and Shane went to Johnnie’s house, (1) that

Briggs did not want Shane to be there, (3) that Briggs and Shane talked in the driveway where

Briggs tried to get Shane to leave, and (4) that Briggs told Shane to leave multiple times. He

testified that he did not see Briggs at Johnnie’s house or on the property that night.

       In sum, Josh testified at Briggs’s trial in a manner that placed blame for the crimes at the

Jones house on Shane—who was deceased—and the other bikers.

       Logan Briggs testified that Briggs is her father and that, at some point, she lived with

Briggs, Josh, and her sister Ashlyn. She testified that, in the summer of 2020 after he and

Sapphire broke up, Josh told her that Briggs, Shane, he, and a few others went down the road to a

man’s house, that he had to hold the girl down, and that the others beat the guy with a gun. Josh

told her that Briggs made him do it and did not say that Shane threatened him or Briggs.
II.    The Evidence Was Insufficient to Support the Jury’s Verdict

       In this appeal, Briggs challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction

for engaging in organized criminal activity. He argues that there is no evidence that he conspired

to commit the predicate crimes alleged, that he participated in those crimes, or that there was an

agreement to continue to engage in criminal activity beyond the single criminal episode on the

night Johnnie was shot. We agree that there was legally insufficient evidence presented at trial

to support a conclusion that Briggs intended to participate in a combination beyond the night of

the shooting.

       A.       Standard of Review

       “In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to

the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010)). “Our rigorous legal sufficiency review focuses on the quality of the evidence

presented.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917–18 (Cochran, J., concurring)). “We examine

legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the

responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214

S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).

       “Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined

by a hypothetically correct jury charge.” Id. (quoting Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997)). “The ‘hypothetically correct’ jury charge is ‘one that accurately sets out the

law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof

or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular

offense for which the defendant was tried.’” Id. (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240).

       In our review, we consider “events occurring before, during and after the commission of

the offense and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common

design to do the prohibited act.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(quoting Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). It is not required that

each fact “point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative

force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.”            Id.

“Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally probative in establishing the guilt of a

defendant, and guilt can be established by circumstantial evidence alone.” Paroline v. State, 532

S.W.3d 491, 498 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (citing Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d

805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13) (citing Guevara v. State, 152

S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004))). “Further, ‘we must consider all of the evidence

admitted at trial, even if that evidence was improperly admitted.’” Williamson, 589 S.W.3d at

297–98 (quoting Fowler v. State, 517 S.W.3d 167, 176 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017), rev’d in

part by 544 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)).

       The jury, as “the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given

their testimony[, could] ‘believe all of [the] witnesses’ testimony, portions of it, or none of it.’”

Id. at 297 (second alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014)). “We give ‘almost complete deference to a jury’s decision when that decision is

based upon an evaluation of credibility.’” Id. (quoting Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008)).

         B.       Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity

         “Under the Penal Code, a person engages in organized criminal activity ‘if, with the

intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination, he

commits or conspires to commit one or more [enumerated offenses, including theft].’” Hart v.

State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02).

“The term combination means ‘three or more persons who collaborate in carrying on criminal

activities.’” Id. (quoting TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.01(a)). “To establish participation in a

combination, the State must prove ‘that the appellant intended to “establish, maintain, or

participate in” a group of three or more, in which the members intend to work together in a

continuing course of criminal activities.’” Id. (quoting Nguyen v. State, 1 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1999)). In other words, there must be continuity to the combination in which the

defendant and at least two other persons intended and “agreed to ‘work together in a continuing

course of criminal activities.’” Nguyen v. State, 1 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

(quoting Nguyen v. State, 977 S.W.2d 450, 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d)).

         As a result, an agreement to jointly commit a single crime will not satisfy the requirement

to show a combination.13 Id. Likewise, a showing of multiple crimes in a single criminal

13
  This is not to say that a showing of a series of criminal acts is required to show an intent to engage in a continuing
course of criminal activities. Rather, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that “a showing of an
intent to establish a combination did not foreclose the possibility that the proscribed action may be the first actual
episode may not show the continuity needed to establish a combination. Ross v. State, 9 S.W.3d

878, 882 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). Rather, “[t]here must be proof of an intent to

participate in a criminal combination that extends beyond a single criminal episode, ad hoc

effort, or goal, regardless of whether multiple laws were broken within the confines of that

episode or effort.” Lashley v. State, 401 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2013, no pet.) (citing Arredondo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 676, 682–83 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008,

no pet.). In Ross, a group of boys sought to retaliate against a girl who purportedly cut them off

in traffic. Ross, 9 S.W.3d at 880. The boys committed a series of assaults while pursuing the

girl on Interstate 35 and beat her when she was forced to come to a stop. Id. at 880, 882.

Because there was no evidence that would lead to a reasonable inference of an agreement to

continue criminal activity after their final assault on the girl, the court of appeals held that the

evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity. Id.

at 882.

          Under the Texas Penal Code, a person may engage in organized criminal activity either

by commission, or by conspiring to commit, one or more of the enumerated offenses. See

O’Brien, 544 S.W.3d at 392; TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.02 (Supp.). Whether the State

charges the defendant with engaging by commission or engaging by conspiracy, “the State still

must prove the existence of a criminal combination.” O’Brien, 544 S.W.3d at 393 (citing

Nguyen, 1 S.W.3d at 695–96). In other words, in both instances, the State must show an

agreement between the defendant and at least two other persons to continue criminal activity.

crime committed by a member of the combination.” O’Brien v. State, 544 S.W.3d 376, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)
(citing Nguyen, 1 S.W.3d at 697).
           C.      Analysis

           The indictment charged Briggs with conspiring to commit burglary, aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon, assault causing bodily injury, deadly conduct, theft, tampering with

witnesses, obstruction or retaliation, or the unlawful transportation of a firearm.                       Briggs

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that there was an agreement to

continue to engage in criminal activity beyond the single criminal episode on the night Johnnie

was shot. The State concedes that the offenses that occurred during the invasion of Johnnie’s

home could be viewed as a single criminal episode but asserts that the members of the

combination unlawfully transported firearms,14 tampered with witnesses,15 and committed

obstruction and retaliation.16

           We agree that there is legally sufficient evidence of an agreement between Briggs, Shane,

Josh, and possibly others, to exact revenge upon Johnnie for selling methamphetamine to Josh

and that, in executing that plan, multiple offenses were committed in a single criminal episode.

We also agree that Shane’s threats to kill every member of Briggs’s family should he or his

fellow gang members be implicated in the attack on Johnnie is some evidence of witness

tampering and obstruction or retaliation. Critically, what is lacking in the trial record is any

14
 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.02(a-1)(2)(A), (B) (Supp.) (requiring, among other things, that the person
“carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or
under the person’s control”). Although the firearm used in the shooting of Johnnie was not recovered, there was no
evidence that it was transported by a person in a motor vehicle owned by or under the control of that person.
15
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.05.
16
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06.
evidence of an agreement between Briggs, Shane, and Shane’s gang members regarding that

threat.

          The only evidence of that threat was through Sapphire’s testimony. Regarding the threat,

Sapphire said,

          [Shane] told us that if we tried to tell anybody what happened, that the people that
          Shane ran with would kill all of us. And [Shane] said they didn’t care if it was
          your mom, your sister, brother, kid, nothing, that it didn’t matter who it was, that
          they would come kill everyone we cared about if we tried to tell anybody that
          they were affiliated with the situation.

Sapphire also testified that Briggs said Shane was not kidding, that Shane was serious, that they

had to be careful, and that Briggs devised a plan for what the family members should say if

questioned by law enforcement.

          From the testimony regarding Briggs’s actions after Shane made his threat, a reasonable

jury could infer that Briggs agreed with those involved in shooting Johnnie that his, Josh’s,

Shane’s, and the gang members’ involvement in the shooting should not be revealed. However,

it is unremarkable that persons involved in a serious crime would agree to keep their

involvement secret. At most, that would amount to the final act of the single criminal episode

that sought revenge on Johnnie.

          An examination of Sapphire’s testimony shows that a reasonable jury could not infer

from that testimony that Briggs entered into an agreement with Shane and his gang members to

threaten the lives of his family. First, Shane’s threat was conditional; he and his gang would

execute it only if a member of Briggs’s family told somebody that Shane and his gang were

involved in the shooting. He did not make a similar threat if Briggs or Josh were implicated in
the crime. Further, the threat to “kill everyone [they] cared about” necessarily included Briggs’s

mother, wife, children, and grandchildren, as well as Briggs himself. No reasonable jury could

infer that Briggs would agree to such a threat against all those for whom he cared.

       Sapphire also testified that, several times between the night of the incident and when she

left Josh in August 2020, she threatened to leave Josh. When she made those threats to leave

Josh, Briggs reminded her that she knew a lot and made sure that she would not say anything.

When she finally left in 2020, Briggs told her, “[W]e know how to kill somebody and . . . same

thing could happen to you.” Notably, Sapphire did not testify that Briggs ever reminded her of

the threat made by Shane or that he made any threat that involved Shane and his gang. Further,

the final threat by Briggs was made at least eight months after Shane died. While this may be

evidence that Briggs, individually, threatened Sapphire, it is not evidence of an agreement

between Briggs, Shane, and the gang members to threaten the lives of Briggs’s family.

       As a result, we find that there was legally insufficient evidence of an agreement between

Briggs and at least two other persons to continue criminal activity beyond the single criminal

episode that sought revenge on Johnnie.         Consequently, we find that there was legally

insufficient evidence to support Briggs’s conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity.
III.   No Lesser-Included Offense Under the Indictment

       After finding that the evidence was insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction, we

are required to determine whether the conviction should be modified to reflect a conviction for a

lesser-included offense. See Canida v. State, 434 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). To

do so, we

       must answer two questions: 1) in the course of convicting the appellant of the
       greater offense, must the jury have necessarily found every element necessary to
       convict the appellant for the lesser-included offense; and 2) conducting an
       evidentiary sufficiency analysis as though the appellant had been convicted of the
       lesser-included offense at trial, is there sufficient evidence to support a conviction
       for that offense? If the answer to either of these questions is no, the court of
       appeals is not authorized to reform the judgment. But if the answers to both are
       yes, the court is authorized—indeed required—to avoid the “unjust” result of an
       outright acquittal by reforming the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-
       included offense.

Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

       Because “prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute,” Lang

v. State, No. PD-1124-19, 2022 WL 3641007, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2022) (quoting

Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), modifying a judgment is only

“proper when the ‘lesser included’ offense is authorized by the indictment,” Id. (quoting Walker

v. State, 594 S.W.3d 330, 340 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020)). See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

37.09(1) (“An offense is a lesser included offense if . . . it is established by proof of the same or

less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged[.]”). In other

words, “a lesser-included offense exists if proof of the alleged offense would also prove the

supposed lesser-included offense.” Lang, 2022 WL 3641007, at *3. For that reason, we must
first determine whether there is a lesser-included offense of the greater offense as charged in the

indictment. See id.

           We use the cognate-pleadings approach “[t]o determine whether a lesser-included offense

exists under article 37.09(1).” Id. at *4 (citing Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524, 535 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007)). Using this approach, we “compare[] the elements of the greater, charged offense as

stated in the indictment to the statutory elements of the purported lesser-included offense.” Id.

(citing Fraser v. State, 583 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019)). We will find that an

offense is a lesser-included offense of the offense charged in the indictment “if the indictment for

the greater-inclusive offense either: 1) alleges all of the elements of the lesser-included offense,

or 2) alleges elements plus facts (including descriptive averments . . . ) from which all of the

elements of the lesser-included offense may be deduced.” Id. (quoting Ex parte Watson, 306

S.W.3d 259, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (per curiam, op. on reh’g)).

           As noted earlier, the indictment in this case charged Briggs with engaging in organized

criminal activity by conspiring to commit certain predicate offenses. The predicate offenses

alleged included both felonies (e.g., burglary of a habitation17 and aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon18) and misdemeanors (e.g., assault causing bodily injury19 and theft of a cell

phone20). “When the State charges a defendant with engaging by conspiracy—as with any

conspiracy—jury unanimity is not required regarding the particular overt acts alleged because

17
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2).
18
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b) (Supp.).
19
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b).
20
     See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(3)
the gravamen of the offense is the agreement.” O’Brien, 544 S.W.3d at 392–93. Further,

“[w]hen the State charges a defendant with engaging by conspiracy—as with any conspiracy—

the State is not required to show a completed offense.” Id. at 393.

       Under the organized crime statute, “‘[c]onspires to commit’ means that a person agrees

with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would

constitute the offense and that person and one or more of them perform an overt act in pursuance

of the agreement.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 71.01. This definition is similar to the elements of

a criminal conspiracy. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.02(a)(1), (2). However, to commit a

criminal conspiracy, the State must also show that the person intended “that a felony be

committed.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.02(a). While the intent that a felony be committed

might be derived from the allegations that Briggs conspired to commit the felony offenses

alleged, the intent that a felony be committed cannot be derived from the allegation that Briggs

conspired to commit the misdemeanor offenses alleged.

       Because, under the indictment, the State could prove the offense charged by showing that

Briggs conspired to commit only the predicate misdemeanor offenses, the alleged offense would

not also prove criminal conspiracy. For that reason, we find that there was no lesser-included

offense alleged under the indictment. Accordingly, we decline to modify the judgment to reflect

a conviction of a lesser-included offense.
IV.         Disposition

            For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a judgment of

acquittal for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity.21

                                                                    Charles van Cleef
                                                                    Justice

Date Submitted:                January 27, 2023
Date Decided:                  April 21, 2023

Do Not Publish

21
     Because Briggs’s first issue entitles him to an acquittal, we need not address his other issues.