Court Opinion

ID: 9539211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 11:09:34.363275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:36.534706
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 1, 2023.

                                    In The

                             Court of Appeals
                                   For The

                         First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                             NO. 01-22-00267-CR
                          ———————————
                  DINESHA RENEE JACKSON, Appellant
                                      V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 208th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1650785

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Kaila Nelson (“Nelson”) robbed 20-year-old Dequan Anderson (“Anderson”)

as he left the Dollar General store where he worked. During the course of the

robbery, Nelson fatally shot Anderson. The State charged Appellant Dinesha Renee

Jackson with capital murder. During the trial, the State argued Appellant had
conspired with Nelson to commit robbery. The State explained to the jury that it

convict Appellant of capital murder as a principal or as party to the offense under

the law of parties.1 The jury found Appellant guilty of capital murder and the trial

court assessed her punishment at confinement for life with no possibility of parole.

This appeal followed.

      In one issue, Appellant argues there is insufficient evidence to sustain her

conviction for capital murder because the evidence did not establish she conspired

to commit robbery or that she could have foreseen capital murder would result from

carrying out the conspiracy. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                      Background

      On December 17, 2017, Anderson left the Dollar General store where he

worked to make a “money run” bank deposit of approximately $3,000. As Anderson

was getting into his car with the deposit bag, Nelson ran up and attempted to take

the bag from Anderson. Anderson resisted and managed to keep control of the bag.

As Anderson attempted to reverse out of his parking spot, Nelson fired several gun

shots in his direction hitting Anderson four times. Anderson’s car came to a stop.

1
      Jackson was charged by indictment with capital murder. The jury charge authorized
      the jury to convict Jackson of capital murder (1) as a principal or (2) as a party to
      the offense under the law of the parties pursuant to Section 7.02(a)(2) or Section
      7.02(b) of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.01, 7.02(a)(2), 7.02(b);
      see also In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
      (“Regardless of whether it is pled in the charging instrument, liability as a party is
      an available legal theory if it is supported by the evidence.”).

                                            2
Nelson smashed the driver’s window, took the money bag, and ran. Anderson was

taken by ambulance to the hospital where he later died from the gunshot wounds.

The State charged Appellant Dinesha Renee Jackson (“Jackson”), an Assistant

Manager at the Dollar General store where Anderson worked, with capital murder.

At trial, the State alleged Jackson conspired with Nelson to rob Anderson.2

                                 Testimony at Trial

A.    Deunita Meeks

      Deunita Meeks (“Meeks”) testified that in December 2017, she worked as an

Assistant Manager at the Dollar General store, together with Jackson and Anderson.

According to Meeks, she, Jackson, and Anderson were all authorized to make bank

deposits for the store. Meeks explained that during the December holiday season,

the store makes a midday bank run to deposit money from the morning and the night

before. Meeks testified that the employee who makes the bank deposit generally

logs the money out of the safe, counts the money, signs and prepares the bank deposit

slip, and seals the money in a clear bag. If the night deposit is involved, the

employee puts the money back in the safe for deposit the next day. Otherwise, the

employee puts the money bag in another bag and takes it to the bank. Meeks testified

2
      Nelson was convicted of capital murder and the trial court assessed her punishment
      at confinement for life with no possibility of parole. See Nelson v. State, No. 14-
      20-00258-CR, 2021 WL 4956990, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26,
      2021, no pet.). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed Nelson’s conviction. See
      id. at *5.

                                           3
that Dollar General trains its employees to not resist if someone attempts to rob the

store.

         Apart from being coworkers, Meeks and Jackson were also friends and they

lived in the same apartment complex near the Dollar General store. According to

Meeks, two women had been staying with Jackson at her apartment for about a week

before the shooting.      She identified the two women as Jamesha Robinson

(“Robinson”) and her girlfriend Nelson. Meeks testified that Robinson is Jackson’s

friend. Meeks associated with Robinson, but she only met Nelson once. During the

time Robinson and Nelson stayed at Jackson’s apartment, Jackson borrowed Meeks’

car to take Nelson to look for a job.

         Meeks and Jackson were working the morning shift at the Dollar General the

day of the shooting. Meeks testified that she and Jackson were discussing who

would make the midday bank deposit. When Meeks offered to go, Jackson told her

Anderson would go instead because it was his responsibility.         Anderson was

scheduled to arrive for his shift at 1 p.m. Although she knew Anderson would be

making the midday bank deposit, Jackson prepared the deposit at 12:30 p.m. and she

signed for it using her own name.

         Jackson was “on her phone” standing near the store’s front window watching

the parking lot when Anderson arrived and parked his car in front of the store.

Anderson, who arrived at work at 1:00 p.m., had only been in the store a few minutes

                                          4
when Jackson instructed him to make the money run to the bank. According to

Meeks, Anderson was upset because Jackson had already prepared the deposit and

put her name on it, and he had not had a chance to verify the deposit information.

Meeks, who was standing next to Jackson, testified she saw Anderson exit the Dollar

General store with the money bag Jackson prepared. As Anderson was getting into

his car, Meeks testified she saw Nelson run up to Anderson. Nelson tried to grab the

money bag from Anderson, but Anderson resisted, and a tussle ensued. After

wrestling the money bag from Nelson, Anderson closed his car door and tried to

drive away. According to Meeks, Nelson ran away and then returned momentarily

with a gun in her hand. Nelson shot at Anderson’s car four or five times before

Anderson crashed the car in the street.      After the crash, Nelson ran over to

Anderson’s car. She broke the driver’s side window, grabbed the deposit bag, and

ran back to a getaway car.

       Meeks testified that when she saw what happened, she exited the Dollar Store

and ran over to Anderson’s car to check on him. Meeks and several Dollar General

customers called 911 to report the shooting. Jackson, who Meeks testified was

standing next to her when the robbery and shooting occurred and was the Assistant

Manager on duty, stayed inside the store. She did not check on Anderson or call

911.

                                         5
B.    Robinson

      Robinson was granted immunity by the State. She testified that she and

Jackson met in in 2007 when they were in the 7th grade and living in Atlanta,

Georgia. According to Robinson, she and Jackson were close friends and they

continued to be close even after Jackson moved to Houston, Texas a year or two

before the shooting.

      Robinson met her girlfriend Nelson in high school, but they did not begin to

date until 2016. By 2017, Robinson and Nelson were both addicted to heroin.

According to Robinson, Nelson paid for the heroin when she was working, but they

otherwise had to borrow money from Nelson’s grandmother or friends to support

their $200 a day heroin addiction. When asked if Nelson had a “hot temper,”

Robinson testified that Nelson would get irritated and agitated when she was high

on heroin.

      In September 2017, Robinson and Nelson were living with Robinson’s sister

at an apartment complex in Atlanta, Georgia. Robinson testified that one day, after

she and Nelson argued, Nelson locked herself in the bedroom and threatened to kill

herself. Robinson, who knew Nelson had a gun, heard gunfire and called the police.

When Robinson broke into the bedroom, she noticed that Nelson had only fired the

weapon at the window. Nelson was arrested and the police seized her gun.

                                        6
      As a result of the incident, Nelson and Robinson were forced to move out of

Robinson’s sister’s apartment. Nelson and Robinson, who were both unemployed,

first stayed with friends or lived out of Robinson’s car. Later, in December 2019,

Robinson called Jackson to ask for help. Jackson offered to let her stay with her at

her apartment in Houston. Nelson and Robinson, who arrived in Houston at least a

week before the shooting, stayed with Jackson at her apartment. Robinson testified

that she told Jackson about Nelson’s gun incident before she and Nelson came to

Houston.

      After they arrived in Houston, Robinson told Jackson that she and Nelson

were addicted to drugs. According to Robinson, Nelson purchased heroin when they

were staying with Jackson and Nelson would smoke the heroin inside Jackson’s

apartment. Robinson and Nelson looked for work in Houston without success.

According to Robinson, Nelson’s grandmother sent Nelson money while they were

in Houston. Nelson used the money to pay for her and Robinson’s $200 per day

heroin addiction, and Nelson was “desperate to get money” after spending her

grandmother’s money.

      Robinson testified that she never saw Nelson with a gun when they were in

Houston. She also testified that Jackson was not a violent person and that she had

never seen Jackson with a gun. Robinson testified that Nelson did not tell her how

she was planning to get money to pay for their heroin addiction after they spent

                                         7
Nelson’s grandmother’s money, and she never heard Jackson and Nelson discuss a

plan to rob the Dollar General store.

      Robinson testified that Nelson paid Kevin Berry (“Berry”), a private Uber

driver Nelson met on Craigslist, to drive them around in Houston.3 Nelson called

Berry the morning of Anderson’s murder and arranged for Berry to drive her and

Robinson to the Dollar General store. Berry picked up Robinson and Nelson from

Jackson’s apartment complex and drove them to the Dollar General store. When

they arrived, Berry parked the car down the street from the store. Nelson got out

and Berry and Robinson waited for her in the car. After a few minutes, Robinson

heard gunshots and then Nelson ran up to the car and told Berry, “Drive, drive.”

According to Robinson, Nelson had a “Dollar General bag” filled with cash when

she got back in the car. Berry drove the women back to Jackson’s apartment and

then to the Greyhound bus station where the couple caught a bus back to Georgia.

They stopped on the way to the bus station, however, for Nelson and Robinson to

3
      Berry, who was also granted immunity by the State, testified that he drove Nelson
      and Robinson to Walmart three days before the shooting to pick up money. The
      next day, Berry drove Nelson and Robinson to buy drugs. According to Berry, they
      did not pay him for that trip. Berry testified that Nelson was wearing a gun both
      days. Nelson contacted Berry and arranged for him to pick her and Robinson up at
      Jackson’s apartment the day of the shooting. Nelson told Berry that she needed to
      be somewhere by 12:30 p.m. According to Berry, Nelson threw $200 in cash at him
      when she got back in the car. Berry testified that he never met Jackson.

                                          8
buy heroin. According to Robinson, Nelson paid for the heroin with the cash she

had just taken from Anderson.

C.    Detective Matthew Brady

      Detective Matthew Brady (“Detective Brady”), a homicide detective with the

Houston Police Department, was assigned to investigate Anderson’s death. He

testified at trial that Jackson spent several hours after the shooting reviewing

surveillance videos with police officers at the scene. He testified that Jackson

directed the officers to customers who had been in the store prior to the shooting as

possible suspects.

      Detective Brady and his partner, Detective Michael Casso (“Detective

Casso”), interviewed Jackson twice as part of the investigation.

      1.     Jackson’s First Interview

      Detective Brady and Detective Casso first interviewed Jackson on January 30,

2018—about one month after the incident. The video recording of Jackson’s

interview, marked as State Exhibit 170, was admitted into evidence and played for

the jury.

      Detective Brady testified that Jackson “lied consistently [during the interview]

until [the detectives] confronted her with some evidence, and then she would adjust

her statement.” Jackson first told the Detectives she was using her mother’s cell

phone the day of the shooting because she did not have a phone and that she gave

                                          9
the police her mother’s phone number when she was questioned by police at the

scene. She later admitted that she had been using her own cell phone and gave police

the wrong phone number the day of the shooting. Jackson also told the Detectives

that she threw her cell phone into a lake on the day of the shooting. She stated she

wanted no one to find her text messages with Nelson and that she bought a new

phone with a new phone number.

      Jackson told the Detectives that no one was staying with her at her apartment

the day of the shooting. Later, when confronted with pictures of Robinson, she

admitted Robinson was a friend who stayed with her at her apartment a few days.

But Jackson claimed that Robinson had returned to Georgia a few days before the

shooting. At first, Jackson also denied knowing Nelson and acted surprised when

Detective Brady showed her a photograph of Nelson.           Jackson admitted she

recognized Nelson in the picture, but she claimed that Robinson had traveled from

Georgia alone and had met Nelson in Houston. Jackson repeatedly denied that

Nelson had stayed at her apartment. She claimed Nelson never stayed with her and

only came to Jackson’s apartment while Robinson was there. Jackson eventually

came clean with the Detectives and admitted that Nelson and Robinson both traveled

from Georgia together and stayed at her apartment for four days.

      Jackson also denied knowing anything about the robbery. She acted surprised

or feigned ignorance when the Detectives shared some of the facts they discovered

                                        10
during their investigation, including the fact Robinson had been in the getaway car

with Nelson on the day of the shooting. The Detectives told Jackson they believed

the robbery was an “inside job” and that she was involved. They explained to

Jackson that they had been able to trace the robbery back to her based on her

relationship with Robinson.

      Jackson claimed she knew nothing about Nelson’s plan to rob the Dollar

General store. She denied “setting up” the robbery or telling Nelson or Robinson

anything about the money drop. The Detectives asked for the truth, but Jackson

continued to deny any involvement in the incident. It was not until the Detectives

confronted her with other facts, including the fact Robinson and Nelson had both

been picked up from her apartment in the getaway car shortly before the robbery and

dropped off at her apartment after, that Jackson admitted some knowledge of the

robbery.

      According to Jackson, the robbery was Nelson’s idea. Even though she

admitted telling Nelson who would be working the day of the shooting and giving

Nelson a description of everyone who worked at the Dollar General store, including

Anderson, Jackson claimed Nelson had figured out the rest on her own. She denied

alerting Nelson when Anderson left the store or telling Nelson how much money

Anderson was carrying with him.

                                        11
      When asked how her conversation with Nelson started, Jackson told the

Detectives that two days before the shooting, Nelson told her she needed money and

wanted to get a job. Jackson told her manager at the Dollar General store that Nelson

was looking for a job, but the store was not hiring. According to Jackson, Nelson

said she “needed to go do something crazy,” which Jackson understood to mean

Nelson was going to “get some money.” According to Jackson, Nelson asked her

about the other employees at the Dollar General store, and she wanted to know “how

the money worked.” Jackson admitted telling Nelson “everything,” including when

employees make the store’s bank deposits and that Anderson would be making the

bank run around 1 p.m. the day of the shooting. She also admitted she gave Nelson

a physical description of Anderson and texted Nelson as Anderson was leaving the

store to make the deposit. Jackson also told the Detectives she sent Nelson a picture

of a different money bag employees at the store had previously deposited. Jackson

claimed no one ever suggested that Nelson steal the money from Jackson, as opposed

to another Dollar General employee, when making a money run.

      Although she claimed that Nelson never stated she was planning to rob

someone, Jackson later admitted she knew Nelson was coming to the Dollar General

store to get the money. Jackson told the Detectives that Nelson was just supposed

to take the money from Anderson and run. She claimed Nelson was not supposed

to pull out a gun and she claimed she did not believe Nelson was the type of person

                                         12
who would shoot someone. When asked if Anderson was a passive guy, Jackson

said she did not know. Jackson told the Detectives that the store’s policy is to hand

over the money in the event of a robbery, but she denied telling Nelson about the

policy. Jackson at first denied receiving any money from the robbery. She later

admitted that Nelson left $500 for her at her apartment, but she claimed she got rid

of the “blood money” and never spent it.

      Despite repeatedly claiming she had never seen Nelson with a gun, Jackson

later admitted she knew Nelson had a gun, and that Nelson “always” had the gun

with her. Jackson admitted she once saw part of the gun when Nelson was wearing

the gun on her hip, but the gun was mostly covered by Nelson’s shirt. Jackson told

the Detectives she eventually left the store to go outside after the shooting, and that

she called her manager to report the incident.

      2.     Jackson’s Second Interview

      Detective Brady and Detective Casso interviewed Jackson again on February

14, 2018. They did so after interviewing Robinson and Nelson, who had been

arrested in Georgia for Anderson’s murder. A video recording of Jackson’s second

interview, marked as State Exhibit 171, was admitted into evidence and played for

the jury.

                                           13
      Jackson, who was arrested at the beginning of the interview, waived her

Miranda4 rights and spoke with the Detectives. Jackson told Detective Brady and

Detective Casso that Nelson first suggested taking the money from Jackson when

Jackson was making a bank deposit, but Jackson decided that another store employee

should make the deposit instead because Jackson did not want to “get in trouble”

with Dollar General. Jackson also claimed she told Nelson that Dollar General

instructs its employees not to resist during a robbery.

      Jackson admitted texting Nelson when Anderson arrived at the store and as he

was leaving the store with the money bag. Jackson admitted that Nelson wore a gun

on her hip and that she had seen Nelson with the gun before the robbery. Jackson

told the Detectives that she “didn’t know that [Nelson] was going to bring the gun. . .

I probably would have thought that she would have carried it, but I didn’t think she

would have brought the gun.” When asked if she assumed Nelson would bring the

gun with her to the robbery, Jackson stated, “I didn’t know but yeah, it’s like

common sense like she was probably going to bring it.” Jackson stated that Nelson

“always” had the gun with her, and she never left it at the apartment because “she

always had it.” Jackson told the Detectives that her role was to provide Nelson with

information about the store and the bank run, but the rest was up to Nelson. She

claimed she did not ask Nelson if she planned to use the gun during the robbery.

4
      Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

                                          14
      Jackson also admitted she knew Nelson used heroin and crack. While she

never saw Nelson do drugs, Jackson stated she knew Nelson and Robinson used

drugs at her apartment because she could smell “a burnt smell” in her restroom.

Jackson told the Detectives she helped Nelson look for employment in Houston and

that Nelson “needed money” and was “desperate for crack.”5 Jackson also told the

Detectives she got rid of everything. She threw her cell phone and the money Nelson

left behind for her in a lake because she was scared and she “didn’t want nobody to

know.”

D.    The Indictment and Jury Charge

      The State charged Jackson with capital murder.6 The jury charge authorized

the jury to convict Jackson of capital murder (1) as the principal or (2) as a party to

the offense under the law of parties pursuant to Section 7.02(a)(2) or Section 7.02(b)

of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.01, 7.02(a)(2), 7.02(b). The

jury also was authorized to convict Jackson of one of the lesser-included offenses of

felony murder, aggravated robbery, or robbery under these same theories of criminal

liability. See id. The jury convicted Jackson of capital murder and the trial court

5
      Jackson also admitted that her boyfriend, who is incarcerated, spoke to Robinson to
      discuss what to do after the robbery. Jackson told the Detectives she gave her
      boyfriend Robinson’s number.
6
      Detective Brady testified that Jackson was initially charged with aggravated
      robbery, but the State later upgraded the charge to capital murder.

                                          15
assessed her punishment at confinement for life with no possibility of parole. This

appeal followed.

                               Sufficiency of the Evidence

          In one issue, Jackson argues the evidence is insufficient to support her

conviction for capital murder because there is insufficient evidence (1) she conspired

with Nelson to commit robbery, or (2) that she should have foreseen capital murder

would result from carrying out the conspiracy to commit robbery. See TEX. PENAL

CODE § 7.02(b). According to Jackson, the evidence shows that, at most, she

conspired with Nelson to commit theft. Jackson further argues there is insufficient

evidence she should have foreseen capital murder would result from carrying out the

conspiracy because Jackson is not a violent person, she did not encourage Nelson to

use violence, she did not know Nelson would use a gun, and she did not expect for

Anderson to resist Nelson’s efforts to take the money from him because Dollar

General employees are trained to hand over the money upon demand and to not

resist.

          The State argues the evidence is sufficient to support Jackson’s conviction for

capital murder because there is evidence Jackson and Nelson conspired to steal the

money from Anderson, Jackson knew Nelson “always” carried a gun with her, and

Jackson admitted it was “common sense” to bring a gun to a robbery.

                                             16
A.    Standard of Review

      We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard

enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). See Brooks v. State, 323

S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We examine all evidence in the light most

favorable to the jury’s verdict to determine whether any “rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson,

443 U.S. at 319. “Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in

establishing the guilt of an actor” and “the standard of review on appeal is the same

for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases.” Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d

460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2004)).

      As the trier of fact, the jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of

the evidence. Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). As the

sole judge of credibility, the jury may accept one version of the facts and reject

another, and it may reject any part of a witness’ testimony. Sharp v. State, 707

S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We defer to the jury to resolve fairly any

“conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences

from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19). A reviewing court, faced with a

record of historical facts supporting conflicting inferences, must presume the

                                          17
factfinder resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to

that resolution. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.

B.    The Indictment and the Jury Charge

      The State charged Jackson with capital murder. The indictment states:

      The duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, presents in the
      District Court of Harris County, Texas, that in Harris County, Texas,
      DINESHA RENEE JACKSON, hereafter styled the Defendant,
      heretofore on or about December 17, 2017, did then and there
      unlawfully, while in the course of committing and attempting to
      commit the robbery of Dequan Anderson, intentionally cause the death
      of Dequan Anderson by shooting the Complainant with a Deadly
      Weapon, namely a firearm.

Although the indictment alleges that Jackson was the principal actor in the capital

murder, the charge authorized the jury to convict Jackson of capital murder as a

principal actor or as a party to the offense under the law of parties pursuant to Section

7.02(a)(2) or Section 7.02(b) of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 7.02(a)(2), (b). The charge provides:

            Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt
      that on or about the 17th day of December, 2017, in Harris County,
      Texas, the defendant, Dinesha Renee Jackson, did then and there
      unlawfully, while in the course of committing or attempting to commit
      the robbery of Dequan Anderson, intentionally cause the death of
      Dequan Anderson by shooting Dequan Anderson with a deadly
      weapon, namely a firearm; or

            If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on
      or about the 17th day of December, 2017, in Harris County, Texas,
      Kayla [sic] Nelson, did then and there unlawfully, while in the course
      of committing or attempting to commit the robbery of Dequan
      Anderson, intentionally cause the death of Dequan Anderson by

                                           18
      shooting Dequan Anderson with a deadly weapon, namely a firearm,
      and that the defendant, Dinesha Renee Jackson, with the intent to
      promote or assist the commission of the offense, if any, solicited,
      encouraged, directed, aided or attempted to aid Kaila Nelson to commit
      the offense, if she did;7 or

             If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on
      or about the 17th day of December, 2017, in Harris County, Texas, in
      the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit the felony of robbery,
      the felony of capital murder is committed by Kayla [sic] Nelson and the
      defendant, Dinesha Renee Jackson, though having no intent to commit
      the offense of capital murder, but in furtherance of the unlawful purpose
      should have anticipated the offense of capital murder would be
      committed as a result of carrying out the conspiracy, then you will find
      the defendant guilty of capital murder, as charged in the indictment.8

C.    Applicable Law

      A person commits capital murder if she “intentionally or knowingly causes

the death of an individual” and “intentionally commits the murder in the course of

committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated

sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat.” TEX. PENAL

CODE §§ 19.02(b)(1), 19.03(a)(2). A person commits robbery “if, in the course of

7
      See TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02(a)(2) (“A person is criminally responsible for an
      offense committed by the conduct of another if . . . acting with the intent to promote
      or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or
      attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.”).
8
      See TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02(b) (“If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to
      commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all
      conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to
      commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and
      was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the
      conspiracy.”).

                                            19
committing theft. . . and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property,

he: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily

injury or death.”9 Id. § 29.02(a). “A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with

intent that a felony be committed:

      (1)    he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of
             them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and

      (2)    he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of
             the agreement.

TEX. PENAL CODE § 15.02(a). “An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be

inferred from acts of the parties.” Id. § 15.02(b); see also Rivas v. State, 473 S.W.3d

877, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. ref’d) (stating “direct evidence of an

agreement among conspirators is not required and rarely exists”); see also Eggert v.

State, No. 11-05-00227-CR, 2007 WL 1644061, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 7,

2007, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (noting that because conspirators’

work is clandestine in nature, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support

conviction) (citing Butler v. State, 758 S.W.2d 856, 860 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 1988, no pet.)).

9
      A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive
      the owner of property. TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.03(a). The offense is a state jail
      felony if “the property is stolen from the person of another.” Id. § 31.03(e)(4)(B).

                                           20
      A person may be convicted as a party to an offense, including capital murder,

“if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which

he is criminally responsible, or by both.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.01(a); see Gross v.

State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The law of parties, set forth

under Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code, may be applied to a case even though

no such allegation is contained in the indictment. See In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391

S.W.3d 117, 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“Regardless of whether it is pled in the

charging instrument, liability as a party is an available legal theory if it is supported

by the evidence.”); see also Marable v. State, 85 S.W.3d 287, 287 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002) (“It is well-settled that the law of parties need not be pled in the indictment.”).

      Under Section 7.02(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, a person is criminally

responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if, acting with intent

to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs,

aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 7.02(a)(2). And under Section 7.02(b), a person is criminally responsible for an

offense committed by another under a theory of conspiracy. That section provides:

      If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony,
      another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators
      are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to
      commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful
      purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the
      carrying out of the conspiracy.

Id. § 7.02(b).

                                           21
      When determining whether a person is a party to an offense, courts “may look

to ‘events before, during, and after the commission of the offense.’” Gross, 380

S.W.3d at 186 (quoting Wygal v. State, 555 S.W.2d 465, 468–69 (Tex. Crim. App.

1977)). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove a defendant’s status as a party,

but “[t]here must be sufficient evidence of an understanding and common design to

commit the offense.” Id. (citing Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2004)). “Each fact need not point directly to the guilt of the defendant, as long

as the cumulative effect of the facts [is] sufficient to support the conviction under

the law of parties.” Id.

D.    Analysis

      Jackson argues there is insufficient evidence she conspired with Nelson to

commit robbery because although she and Nelson agreed that Nelson would steal

the money bag from Anderson, Jackson and Nelson “never discussed that the theft

would involve a weapon, and Jackson told the detectives that no one was supposed

to get hurt.” Jackson further argues that even if she conspired with Nelson to commit

robbery, there is insufficient evidence she should have foreseen that capital murder

would result from Nelson carrying out their conspiracy. She argues there is no

evidence Jackson “encouraged the use of violence” when she and Nelson planned

the robbery, Jackson has no history of violence, Jackson knew Dollar General

                                          22
employees are trained not to resist a robber’s demands to hand over money, and

Jackson did not know Nelson would use a gun during the commission of the robbery.

      1.    Evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery

      The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,

establishes that Jackson gave Nelson all the information she needed to carry out the

robbery, including the time, the place, and the description of the intended victim,

Anderson. After repeatedly denying that she even knew Nelson, Jackson eventually

admitted that she had explained to Nelson how Dollar General handles its daily bank

deposits and that she gave Nelson a description of everyone who worked at the store,

including Anderson. Jackson, who decided that Anderson would make the midday

bank run, told Nelson that Anderson was scheduled to arrive at work at 1 p.m., and

she texted Nelson when Anderson arrived at work and when he left the store to go

the bank.

      Jackson knew that Nelson was an unemployed heroin addict who needed

money to pay for her expensive addiction. Jackson admitted that Nelson used drugs

at her apartment because she could smell “a burnt smell” in her restroom. And as

she told Detective Brady and Detective Casso, Nelson “needed money” and was

“desperate for crack.” Jackson also admitted she had seen Nelson with a gun, and

she knew that Nelson always wore a gun on her hip and never left it behind. Jackson

also knew Robinson had used the gun before and had been arrested in Georgia for

                                        23
discharging the gun in Robinson’s sister’s apartment. Robinson testified she told

Jackson about the gun incident in Georgia, and she also testified that Nelson would

get agitated when high on drugs. A jury could reasonably infer from this evidence

that Nelson had a propensity for violence.

      Although she denied knowing that Nelson was planning to bring the gun to

the robbery, Jackson admitted to Detective Brady and Detective Casso that she

“probably would have thought that [Nelson] would have carried [the gun].” When

asked if she had assumed that Nelson was going to bring the gun with her to the

robbery, Jackson stated, “I didn’t know but yeah, it’s like common sense she was

probably going to bring it.” Jackson stated that Nelson “always” had the gun with

her, and she never left it at the apartment because “she always had it.” The jury

could have reasonably inferred from this evidence that Jackson knew Nelson would

bring the gun with her to the robbery. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (stating jury is

entitled to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts).

      After setting the wheels in motion, Jackson stood back and watched from the

store window as Nelson ran up to Anderson’s car and, after failing to wrestle the

money away from Anderson, shot at Anderson’s car as he attempted to drive away.

Jackson, who did nothing to stop Nelson, stayed inside the store after the shooting

and called the store manager. Unlike Meeks, Jackson never called 911 for help or

attempted to render aid to Anderson.

                                          24
      Jackson also tried to destroy evidence by throwing her cell phone and the $500

Nelson left for her at her apartment into a lake later that night. She also misled

officers at the scene by giving them a fake cell phone number and spending hours

reviewing surveillance videos with officers at the scene directing them to customers

who had been in the store prior to the shooting as possible suspects. Jackson was

also less than forthcoming when she was first interviewed by Detective Brady and

Detective Casso, repeatedly changing her story when confronted with evidence that

refuted her claims. And even during her second interview, Jackson was less then

forthcoming, offering new information or facts only after being pressed for more

information from Detective Brady and Detective Casso.

      A jury reasonably could conclude from all of this evidence that Jackson

conspired with Nelson to rob Anderson. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 15.02(b) (“An

agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the parties.”); see

also Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (stating jury is entitled to draw reasonable inferences

from basic facts to ultimate facts). Although Jackson told Detective Brady and

Detective Casso that the plan was for Nelson to simply grab the money from

Anderson and run, and that no one was supposed to get hurt, as the sole fact finder,

it was the jury’s role to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence and resolve

any conflicts in the evidence and the jury apparently did not find Jackson’s

statements credible. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326. As the reviewing court, we must

                                          25
defer to the jury’s resolution of this issue. See id.; see also Ervin v. State, 333 S.W.3d

187, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (holding evidence

sufficient to prove defendant conspired to commit robbery because defendant drove

alleged co-conspirators to carwash, co-conspirators had guns and were wearing

bandana masks and hoodies, defendant knew co-conspirators were going to rob man

washing his car, and defendant picked up co-conspirators from carwash after

robbery); Nunez v. State, 215 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d)

(holding evidence sufficient to prove defendant conspired to rob restaurant because

defendant hid in bushes near restaurant late at night wearing dark clothes and ski

cap, fled from scene, took same path of escape as alleged co-conspirator, and gun

and ski cap were found near bushes); Hanson v. State, 55 S.W.3d 681, 690 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding evidence sufficient to prove robbery

conspiracy when defendant knew about plan to rob victim at victim’s home by

hitting victim over his head, went with alleged co-conspirators to victim’s home,

carried hammer used in attack in his knapsack, and afterwards retrieved hammer and

washed knife used by co-conspirators to attack victim); Thompson v. State, 54

S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding evidence sufficient to

prove robbery conspiracy because defendant knew of plan to rob two men, defendant

participated in plan, and noting lack of evidence “that any member of the group did

anything but cooperate with the terms of the plan to commit robbery”).

                                           26
      2.     Evidence of Murder as a Foreseeable Result

      Based on this same evidence, a jury also reasonably could conclude that

Jackson should have foreseen the possibility of murder occurring during the course

of the robbery given that Nelson was an unemployed heroin addict with a propensity

for violence who was desperate for money and always carried a gun with her. See

Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d)

(“Evidence that a defendant knew his co-conspirators might use guns in the course

of the robbery can be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant should have

anticipated the possibility of murder occurring during the course of the robbery.”);

see also Ervin, 333 S.W.3d at 201–02 (holding murder was anticipated result when

defendant participated in robbery conspiracy and knew co-conspirators were armed).

While Jackson told the Detectives she did not know Nelson was going to bring the

gun with her to the robbery or think that Nelson would bring it with her, it was the

jury’s exclusive role to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence and resolve

any conflicts in the evidence. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326. As the reviewing court,

we must presume the jury resolved any conflicts in favor of the prosecution and we

defer to the jury’s resolution. See id.

      Jackson argues this case is distinguishable from our prior opinion in Love v.

State, 199 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). In Love,

the defendant, who worked as a night manager for Whataburger, recognized one of

                                          27
the men in a car that pulled up to the drive-through window, and he went outside to

speak to him. Id. at 449. The defendant told that man, his co-conspirator, that he

should return to the restaurant to commit a robbery on a night when the defendant

worked, and they would pretend not to know one another, and the defendant would

give him the money. Id. The defendant told his co-conspirator that if someone else

was working that night, he should not believe any employee who told him he did not

have keys to the restaurant’s safe or know how to open the safe because that

employee could open the safe. Id.

      When the defendant came back inside the store, he told his co-workers that

the men he had been talking to outside had guns and were attempting to rob someone

at the restaurant, but that the defendant knew one of the men and was able to

convince them not to rob anyone. Id. The defendant told everyone to be careful in

case the men attempted to rob someone at the restaurant again. Id. at 449–50. The

defendant, who left work early the night of the robbery, left an intellectually disabled

co-worker in charge of the restaurant. Id. at 450. The co-worker was shot and killed

when he refused to provide the keys to the safe to the co-conspirator. Id. at 451.

      On appeal, this Court held there was sufficient evidence the defendant should

have anticipated there was a possibility one of his co-conspirators would commit

murder during the course of the robbery he helped plan. Id. at 453–54. Jackson

argues there is insufficient evidence she should have anticipated the possibility

                                          28
Nelson would commit murder during the course of the robbery because unlike the

defendant in Love, she did nothing to increase the chance of force or violence being

used in the robbery, and she did not know that Nelson would use a gun during the

robbery. On the contrary, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Jackson knew

Nelson would bring the gun with her to the robbery because Jackson knew Nelson

always carried a gun with her, she “probably would have thought that [Nelson]

would have carried [the gun]” to the robbery, and she admitted it was “like common

sense [Nelson] was probably going to bring it” to the robbery. See Hooper, 214

S.W.3d at 13 (stating jury is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts

to ultimate facts). Although Jackson may not have done anything to increase the

likelihood Nelson would use force or violence to accomplish the robbery, such

conduct is not required to establish criminal liability under the law of the parties, nor

is the absence of such evidence dispositive in a sufficiency of evidence inquiry. See

Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (stating courts examine all evidence in light most favorable

to jury’s verdict to determine whether any “rational trier of fact could have found

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).

      We thus hold there is sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s finding that

Jackson conspired with Nelson to commit robbery, and that Jackson, who knew that

Nelson always had her gun with her and never left it behind, should have foreseen

                                           29
the possibility of murder occurring during Nelson’s efforts to carry out their

conspiracy to rob Anderson.

      We overrule Jackson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

her conviction for capital murder.

                                     Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                              Veronica Rivas-Molloy
                                              Justice

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do Not Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                         30