Court Opinion

ID: 9941924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-19 16:08:21.198934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:26.231295
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 13, 2024

                                       In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                             NO. 01-22-00745-CR
                           ———————————
                  JONATHAN DAVON GEIGER, Appellant
                                         V.
                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 337th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1697155

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jonathan Davon Geiger was convicted of robbery1 and sentenced

to five years’ imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, Geiger contends that

1
      TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.02(a)(1).
insufficient evidence supports his conviction. Because the evidence is sufficient, we

affirm.

                                   Background

      In November 2020, complainant Lucy Mejia was driving to work. While

stopped at an intersection, a stranger entered her vehicle through the passenger side

of her car. The man was wearing a hoodie and he grabbed Mejia above the waist by

her shirt and skin. Mejia struggled with him to escape from her car. She ran to a

nearby McDonald’s while the man drove off.

      Jonas and Petunia Lewis were at the nearby McDonald’s. Jonas was placing

an order at the counter when an unknown Black man in a gray hoodie and jeans ran

inside. The man was hunched over and ran quickly through the McDonald’s,

immediately exiting through another door. Petunia was in the parking lot, waiting

inside the couple’s truck. Jonas went outside after he noticed the man was looking

into his truck, but he soon ran away. The couple saw the man run across the street,

get into Mejia’s car, and drive away after she jumped out of it. Mejia ran toward the

couple and Petunia called 911.

      Law enforcement found Geiger with Mejia’s car less than 20 minutes after the

911 dispatch. Harris County Sherriff’s Office Deputy D. Vasquez was initially

dispatched to the robbery scene where he spoke to Mejia. HCSO Deputy J. Rhodes

was assisting as a back-up unit and found Geiger standing next to Mejia’s car, which

                                         2
was wrecked in a ditch, less than two miles from the intersection where it was stolen.

When Deputy Rhodes asked Geiger if he had lost control of the car, Geiger

responded that he might have hit something. Geiger fled on foot when Deputy

Rhodes asked him to put his hands behind his back. Geiger jumped a fence and ran

across the main lanes of the nearby highway, but he was apprehended by HCSO

Deputy E. Zubia, who saw Geiger trying to hide in the brush.

      Geiger was indicted for robbery, pleaded not guilty, and went to trial. The jury

heard testimony from Jonas and Petunia Lewis, Deputy Vasquez, Mejia, Deputy

Rhodes, and Deputy Zubia. The jury found Geiger guilty, and the trial court

sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

                            Sufficiency of the Evidence

      Geiger contends that the evidence was legally insufficient because the State

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the identity of the robber and (2) bodily

injury to Mejia.

A.    Standard of Review

      In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational factfinder

could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010). The factfinder is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and

                                          3
the weight to be given to their testimony, so we defer to the factfinder’s

determinations on those matters. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. We do “not intrude on

the jury’s role to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Johnson v. State, 560

S.W.3d 224, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (quoting Musacchio v. United States, 577

U.S. 237, 243 (2016)) (internal quotations omitted).

B.    Analysis

      To establish that Geiger committed robbery as charged in his indictment. the

State was required to prove that “in the course of committing theft . . . and with intent

to obtain or maintain control of the property, [Geiger] . . . intentionally, knowingly,

or recklessly [caused] bodily injury to another.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.02(a)(1).

“‘In the course of committing theft’ means conduct that occurs in an attempt to

commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or

commission of theft.” Id. § 29.01.

      I.     Identity

      On the identity issue, Geiger contends that because there was no direct

evidence that Geiger was the robber there is insufficient evidence to support the

conviction. But the lack of direct evidence does not decide guilt. Guevara v. State,

152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Identity may be proven by circumstantial

evidence or by inferences. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App.

                                           4
2016); Jones v. State, 458 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015,

pet. ref’d). Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and

“circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Hooper v. State,

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

      Here, Jonas was able to describe the man he saw at the McDonald’s as

African-American and wearing a gray hoodie, but he did not see his face. Petunia

was only able to describe the man as Black and wearing a dark hoodie. Mejia

described him as wearing a “jacket with [a] hoodie.” About 20 minutes after the

robbery, Deputy Rhodes found Geiger, a Black man wearing a gray hoodie, standing

next to Mejia’s crashed car. This was about two miles, or a five or six-minute drive,

from where the robbery occurred. When asked about what happened, Geiger told

Deputy Rhodes, “he might have hit something.” When Deputy Rhodes instructed

Geiger to put his arms behind his back, Geiger ran.

      Based on Geiger’s statement to Deputy Rhodes, the factfinder could

reasonably infer that he was driving Mejia’s car when it crashed. See Gross v. State,

380 S.W.3d 181, 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (factfinder may draw reasonable

inferences from evidence). Geiger also matched the descriptions provided by the

Lewises and Mejia. See Jenkins, 439 S.W.3d at 599. Finally, the jury could also have

considered Geiger’s flight from law enforcement as evidence of his guilt. See

Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (factfinder may draw

                                          5
an inference of guilt from the circumstance of flight). Taken together, a reasonable

factfinder could have found that Geiger was the robber. See Murray v. State, 457

S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (resolving conflicts in testimony, weighing

the evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences is the factfinder’s role); Johnson,

560 S.W.3d at 226 (appellate courts do not intrude on factfinder’s role in drawing

reasonable inferences and weighing evidence).

      II.    Bodily Injury

      Geiger contends that because Mejia denied feeling pain when the robber

grabbed her but later testified that she did feel pain at that moment, a rational

factfinder could not have found that the State proved bodily injury beyond a

reasonable doubt. Bodily injury means “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of

physical condition.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(a)(8). “This definition encompasses

even relatively minor physical contact if it constitutes more than offensive

touching.” Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

      Here, Mejia testified multiple times that she felt pain when appellant grabbed

her. She explained that he grabbed her above her waist by her shirt and her skin when

he got into the car, describing his grasp as “[v]ery strong,” and that she felt pain and

struggled with him to escape. See Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012) (“Any physical pain, however minor, will suffice to establish bodily

injury.”). The factfinder may also infer that a complainant “actually felt or suffered

                                           6
physical pain because people of common intelligence understand pain and some of

the natural causes of it.” Id. That Mejia did not report any pain to law enforcement

at the time of the robbery does not mean there was insufficient evidence. See Metcalf

v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (jury is sole judge of witness

credibility and can believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony). We assume

the factfinder weighed both her testimony at trial and her answers to law enforcement

at the time of the robbery and resolved the conflicts in favor of their verdict. See id.;

see also Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (“a reviewing

court does not sit as the thirteenth juror and may not substitute its judgment for that

of the factfinder by reevaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence”).

      Geiger also argues that on cross-examination, Deputy Vasquez revealed that

despite Mejia not saying she felt pain at the time of the incident, he relayed that she

did in his police report. So, according to Geiger, a rational factfinder could not have

found that the State proved bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, we

assume the factfinder weighed this evidence, along with the other evidence

presented, and resolved any conflicts in favor of the verdict. Merritt v. State, 368

S.W.3d 516, 525–26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility

and weight of any evidence).

                                           7
      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational

factfinder could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Geiger committed

the robbery. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

      We overrule Geiger’s sole issue.

                                   Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                               Sarah Beth Landau
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           8