Court Opinion

ID: 4074867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 05:25:50.951527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:25.074558
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL
                       :Oo_jjk                           :

                 ?,0. W-.       P(vi4i<;-K
                                                    RECEIVED IN
                                             COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
 >-RCMtooiO_lft-S,_HoKGrftiO_
                                                  DEC 0 7 2015
                         JEttCDQiaOl

                                                      DEC 11 2Bi5

                                                   Abel Acosta, Clerk

 ltoiSiJP£1iflDK)_liI-I>a^(^ElX0^ftR-lSQIIEW-

                                       i£Sffid2jlliii_S\)6Mrit£0
                                       J3fiftdQ0O&!UtoK6fi*l
 D66L_flft&LM£ML!                    __^flaa^J3Haisi
itlQn£si:io      ,_                   _sio_auaiL
                                                              11341
               ^nm&USLjMtfa&r
^)ogLM3&&l:
          yDii^fe.RocKrCiio.wM._
          53S^ tourer fongr

         .Uooiro^JSii^JJiDDi

tWcjjflMfr {YftORlOEM ftf TfcCftL'.

      yoosroio_;lk^JaoD_i_

_i)joaoas£-fti^^
      ftftjRLJjJ MrilLM SAOf* X40t<*HS
      f,ftftift <;o?-Tte_                  .__                            _        /»'/
_S______JL                      —                            „_________-_____

  /_.4t4-tej_J_r Usc/^Wyy _awcC>                                            .        (_
 rre U/wiA«yy O'/r _/mi ___/___,           .                        =                  _Z_

 _3_k____S__*_f_________ _____                                                  _i_l
   ^/•gU/MgiUT           _                                               __ _   .G
   Jkr_r_                           .             _    _     _                   1

  Cer4fc*l_- of .&_«_-._. _                                                     'o

 J:p|Xe/v^_X_/4                ._                       — - -_— - -J foj             e_L

                                           i t~
                    XA^^^D^OdLlUoM:-^^^
                                                                                  P*F-—-

/.       Gut V. 4*4o ,4o_ US 3«., ._•_&* /o?«,_/ Lftt -4 TXAQnn)                  2

_    .   G__« 9. SAck- ;^ 5^„ .*7 / _Tfe CaV /ty/>. teii}                 •

GL       fku.e, vi< K*^er r_/0_( u.S 3-(. clit*'{foCr,*.AM 2o»?l)

y.       OUfty v/.&k ;3^3 S^Xt JT-r. #_ (T&Ca^&fp. l£>io)                     '

                                                  -

                       .

                \

                                    I,»
                                   •III-
                   _____ii___S_

                                     _/_^_
/fX<_ At_.( <_.<___. J 2-,&_",.,

                             •l\l-
                _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

       _____&£_____!^^                          _______

                                                —

     4ikL^&i!L&-££M>z

     __lf£<:i_xiO--^

                     VXJU^U0DWCO--Cil               —

            __eL_s£-@_axi3_bii-e_D^
4b^uCrtec*_A^
-ftCtomS-                                   —

            _______J______^^
___S__fH_U_-______i__^^
_:_fe____Lf^
1_j__Jjg______j_^

                                •I-
         _JB_____j_8L_______.

 r^Wf?__r" x^oM Aes/tevfflllis rtJji^sh j**~ _o .p/*<#e, 60^

_jfccW iW/____Jt/cW U,S,_lW ?__,<_>, 3"9_^________.
                             •   ••   -   •   •   •       •—   ••'

 _a/_frucJL .a__ ._,_/ "to (el. _rfn.c,Af sh/vUstk •/*«*. iort^ti
 pftAtttAis JlrafkA _y ..U^jte£^-juOtsJi—CyU't. \J. Aefc ,_/_5_J___5_-_____l
 _i. sx_ /o_]__,JU.eg(-i _G3 (_L__I(^_l_)_8_

                           -2-
                  ?iO____dAAL _f&f_M£ivyf

    OAv 3^-ly ^o, -z-o' 2_ ; . r_ <__. a. a, /._5^, ?_., * __y_.Wf o__ £L/

 -A. A//?3f7 ^> ^       _flj^ _f /Vu_g_^-. £>a. >Xa^ z,*, -o/«/; fle&'titAes-
cjhptcred ;*-._._- /4a. _. f/_~ 33r^ _ -fr>lf <£>w^ _>f //»>>
 /_u/_y , ^ey_ ^o>r uw-f *W_f (a _v.j_ M, Wtfsrf ; pe^i->Af^r pl-eajl
 A/flf QuAhf» _k _XaI^ 3-/ _->/*/ Juic/|_^ ibpnAj -?yvv_-.W yfi_/v^__A-_/~ _t
t^- / ^4c/_e- A-av /,-^_Af_- ^f MutJlt. fp^s Pencil Locle^bft'OZ-ttwJis
GS aliened ^ ^ jA-cCcfAtg/tf, /4/f g/-'**__e_-'>»eAf fi^r^AmhLs -__rC- /_>.,__ -/_> __,.

or (W/^Xftf ,K/v>A__. —'jAs^fufiQA^f lW_>qa. Pa- JltW 2*1 fZotj /)_-/-.f>_xA_r^

 /_>tA/^___v'fv- __urf _>P /4/w_>-_ 9cA_>rtcrK. /*/ <-*_?

 /___3- _CyfWa<_ to AAv. e.HT' 3^ -Q^;

                                -3-
              ___v_-M-A3ff D_         PftCfS

 T/v_ fnUf Ct,oj~f J2>toJi „A_?/Lvf ifl/-v__A _W /->-yo_ j„7/y o^
Afu/>_/~ ftA_ .yexfe,-—^ k*q /q Co^^u^^t w //._-, ^k /t/*/-f dfc A/)/l&;(s L_y /*\ic±±sir**& q _r/_._vk_-; /-.'€-, rtsnU __ .
 or ore).a _vcg . . <-u__ t_6.3f<_/

—-f- H_ Co^^ot App&'s re^ie-P.; 'V^- _^a(s qccu^Ja^ __fi>f_. jd^/t^c                   gj-_

*?/_/-' —V UK./I'f A_- UA.^e/-.fiei? Al«_. _/_ f.«_ y.o/_U fW- A%lf- J^b_J_____._
                                                                     ^

OrfV fl__ ua--_a4iv _-«rfe_f l^ccofJl l O^Zl? ilWfCtj
/*m357 __/_ fl«_ ?f Woo) QcuUu'f fU, .y^oA_.K<*( ufcd. _. ,%r^*_-fL-
       if _«___.-o/yefcf ._ fl_nAA« fU_,o -_a.cJL
!>.!,_. <_> jpe_ukfr'-A. i f4t^gr_ (_ &rfc_.,
                  r r! "^ /i          C .
                                              ^ 5*>>3c* ^ '^f^X Cttn.fyi
                                              -1_ r. .,. i a j_-/-n /* >•
                                                                          lo&\

06e_ fi-_- -Av_)A'!<>-, by frU, _kk- n^v^ _> Orb*^-/y>J(.v._. ^/*__.»'             (>___

fo ft— fl _<_.>_. ffifArJLu^j 
(Tey, C-^v Afiftelo) c^A Gross _-.&.__- ,,3fo 5^3cg /£•/. \$tf(je/:. Cri* 4p(>. T^) .
 _A_ ___ /Vf 'Votj/_  evtA, occ^Nt Wo^-/ cWU , a__f aft<-~ ' if,
/NgV/e"Ji-vlet£A-f\fie_ <. /)e__ L f>_ A.'iV. pf
 _*_. (_>>W. flo 57^0 Kit *< gma! o<^ q -H*orot-il_ ,Af _W._>_ -fe> pn>V*~ e/~ _«!f/}/_/—- e^pneSWH
 __._--.f.3A_ -£> f>v_-- /?*V -v . /?r_-C*.'i^oi'if-t>A- fo>

            "T*_. nftp<*.«.\ C^i\rh ,s£i__ Xa. f4,fl_r. fk- g_viE re|Ai _.«cg f__ hJtrof
 4-cf <5 <1_>/ A_^^ff- _ftt/_- 2j __^>3cJ? 1; IS~\J^%, Cn^. fy.

          To Correctly ^Pp'f ***- 3__.fa._A Srs*J+rd, 'f '-S vital tiy.«f Cj>™rh -T
           -flflgafa {j^MlTs^^ fi^ 'fR/_Ac4L. _K^W-€a. _ f^J^—ci £4, Ja>C_A__-
              ij/Att? i?y -fk- ev<^c_. -tf fW-tf J^e^u>«AW; fl_g* . f)c*s<+/*pA*^, A-
          hrejyj*p4***- ._• ft 'gs»( ia/__a.c_ ft^f-- £cf e>_n_ if f*-. ^^_ s( _//.,*
          r«W _) fi-^ /?^yt*Ay?_&A- °J-%r fiCbv*-t^ i^ey^ci?^ r*Arej^a°le^ __ii)f. ^g^-

         r_ac.Le_-| oy _iA-5/-_ri--t. _Tf(_t/~ -Ac^ c_ac1 ae^ck& _/_<•_*- _>A-^_e
        4ro^ -fwAM.. V? e_.ia /~_ _ At/ek'y CAArcgj,^^^ . j?t»f i_J_____
         5_#i_ _\4y UjeJ? &_W_ oj-cmMac*^ •/_ SirMiC'lr a. ____^__ey_j.j\___^>___^_
         _-0-«OT,                                                                                :

                                             -&-
  :____, ,f /_ . (fcaf/->A- pn.WJ. ~77_- -7?'er _>f-fcc-f as for*%kJ                 ^o „?r. O/h*.v?J_k_
/_4.jty_6ii»/— We^c^i. "A-oM. -pU, 4mJUa.«~ (yl'r*&( #J~ C^cuaa^/WJa fy ; Juf •/•__.*  -frgQ ^rJ __>aj 3^___, _>j^jfgec, U,a_. . /_g*, .""___, /_ _W- __" rtAp** (s
tvAcWi_vi_. b,f*A.
%•___-(«-£_-,,,     Art U_i^eAf>t?'_, Ai-a. VO^ /%«___. <*'f ^K, &_C ._>& fk_. ^/fo_J
 C.*rJ. _/Ly_ (je^ I^Hitri fcu_._yl lU. /_of /1/>?._ Il-toa), 1%- C^r
 _>f Apnea's did Act jzluu f(_ )^/a __>Afy_--./-W for $d .A*- fncr d€ fcc'f vJk
af/^et, -to _£„ t._f dpp&ikA^- Af />r.lAg.^)/e- __*>r, l»tr*- ^g-* __'c/_ «•• -f-K-f _T2^^o>__,
gjfo rOLcU/ W.AIAC _»_A -/_t_ f-W /_Af , _, A <3/-{^f_,___. U7'/i_ M_, /_*$,>_ .-S I
jfetffit/^; ^3t'Xc/ filt>stJ~ -fe* -U- C_. e. u~hie,-hntT df jptd _
/_.f /?i>j- 'f, . *A> 4iV-. a,./1. J)a___' <3__ /*>€/__ jWe_.utUA~^ &-" A-dfauJ-V UAS«fpi/&d!
 /^rg-£AC<_> <_^/)j^__rtyv>j,A'_J»J.   no^)y". ;.
                        '       r      —*—
           / a_ 4ri!a( /)_ci__,^ exJiJjLKOi-, c-T,— ^AkS pr*-~ dsspox'tisJ^ ~k> S>'-*.<8~-*' qA_.MA^"
c_a__ -/-.__ _,__._ .-/)_y_a. JA^e.^Vfa/y dro__.j-.__. cyv_, -/ecWv'f«^^S- /' A— /. Jc of T^jfe
 SWo_ '_, fl_t, /l_,qf.V— -pUfcf .*€- S-Vk- .ft. &•<__ t^pzfhAr _i/-_a_e,--50 <_ _> fl—Jad. prtXA.
                                                                                                 WCA—-

JU_ o/v *ppd(**-bl ^er_A,, (^Repukrs Ke.c&rJt ,o^/G of/*. W_ /V/r__^_J_____4_____!_
U)V^A_ G^|!t__ -,_ov_f eX£.. ty_lV>ry •/_»_. ._*<. _>(_>A-. ' "TkenJ ^_»-_ogif /AtAoAj_t/_/_ ^U^f-
vxO __• -..rA.*. flj e. jW^ cgA- -H-./K. , /M.y T^i _
U_<;_ 4t> ^a4 f4_.CAu._a- q*JtoC_?, a> of fL_. hfC-. ^AofUr' ia, .V«'__€_( jL- ..__..<&fop fp
Pr_j^f e_i<^tJ- ^>k<_^ _>cAl U- >.t^r^_ U kobf _), "H*-U-&~di'2-- Mi/t.. /,3 / ^
          ^"lJi^-HJ, /tf A> A*_ d'J afijidL,^ _-£__. /_ftt-gi^_ k, ;AI/.^yrrtH, /.

__7_rA,eAf -Arfe^ _>___ lk*tR»u a pJycrsfiL //_. <^ «a! -fe fU_ _>_, ,
Pa ,__ tfeJkr£>_*f - r1p*\ici -n—• tfeo_ U*-* fy

Wei,, __.>-<__ W .// « ApsJ(e*h d\d entry A-.-M jD^s./'?/- g?j aa. i^d'siA pe/3u^ /_

            / A_. -f.'*-^ A> £_f_>. cf anpev«A.ir
                                                          (.        J«/eJ _v _,,'«_»--__. /_«<.

                                              -«•-
        '

                                                            1Afp&ls dPlefos-
U^ufc? CtzKtlMjT fk .>_. y_e_frW&A_ far
           7;
y)r/5^_A_ /.a/A.* 5V.A^ gffW. OyW/7_- ->^/f . _*_/*6<_'"" -p/iT aqUmj#><( i*>
Ta_, Gts+ atfef
iTy4,-A'o_A_ .Aa.aw"# /p^j >_r?-/_

                                          Ry*d(&((f G_v. .W

                                           2c_i_______
                                          v^Yd/l______Il
                                            _)_
                                         -qo-P/^ "E-frH.
                                         /k«<_443 U.S. 307 (1979). See
Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

      When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine, based on that evidence and
any reasonable inferences from it, whether any rational factfinder could have found
the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d
743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. The trier of
fact is the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given
to the evidence. See Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
We defer to the factfinder's responsibility to fairly resolve or reconcile conflicts in
the evidence. Id. We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of

the verdict. Id.

                                      Analysis

       Appellant challenges his conviction on the basis that it amounts to "pure
speculation." Appellant cites Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007), Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), and Gross
v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), in support of his argument
the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction.

                                          16
      The Winfrey court held that if the evidence at trial raises only a suspicion of
guilt, even a strong one, the evidence is insufficient. Winfrey, 232 S.W.3d at 882.
Winfrey is distinguishable from the case at bar because in that case there was no
evidence placing the defendant at the murder scene. By contrast, appellant, by his
own admission, was inside the house at the murder scene.

      The defendant in Gross was convicted under the law of parties, and the
evidence established another person was the shooter. The court concluded the
conviction "was based on pure speculation" because there was no evidence of a
prior or contemporaneous plan between the defendant and the shooter to commit
the murder. In the case at bar, appellant was convicted as the principal actor.
Because there is evidence appellant was the only person present in the house when
Wiebke suffered her fatal injuries, the factfinder's conclusion that appellant caused
those injuries is hardly "pure" speculation.

      In Hooper, the court recognized the trier of fact is not permitted to find guilt
based on mere speculation or factually unsupported inferences or presumptions.
See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The Hooper court
stated:

          To correctly apply the Jackson standard, it is vital that courts of
          appeals understand the difference between a reasonable inference
          supported by the evidence at trial, speculation, and a presumption. A
          presumption is a legal inference that a fact exists if the facts giving
          rise to the presumption are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See
          Tex. Penal Code § 2.05. ... In contrast, an inference is a conclusion
          reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical
          consequence from them. Speculation is mere theorizing or guessing
          about the possible meaning of facts and evidence presented. A
          conclusion reached by speculation may not be completely
          unreasonable, but it is not sufficiently based on facts or evidence to
          support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

                                            17
Id. at 16 (footnote omitted). The trier of fact is permitted "to draw multiple
reasonable inferences from the evidence (direct or circumstantial), but they are not
permitted to draw conclusions based on speculation." Id. The Hooper court
provided a hypothetical to illustrate this point that is analogous to the case at bar.

      A woman is seen standing in an office holding a smoking gun. There
      is a body with a gunshot wound on the floor near her. Based on these
      two facts, it is reasonable to infer that the woman shot the gun (she is
      holding the gun, and it is still smoking). Is it also reasonable to infer
      that she shot the person on the floor? To make that determination,
      other factors must be taken into consideration. If she is the only
      person in the room with a smoking gun, then it is reasonable to infer
      that she shot the person on the floor. But, if there are other people
      with smoking guns in the room, absent other evidence of her guilt, it
      is not reasonable to infer that she was the shooter. No rational juror
       should find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the shooter, rather
       than any of the other people with smoking guns. To do so would
       require impermissible speculation. But, what if there is also evidence
       that the other guns in the room are toy guns and cannot shoot bullets?
       Then, it would be reasonable to infer that no one with a toy gun was
       the shooter. It would also be reasonable to infer that the woman
       holding the smoking gun was the shooter. This would require multiple
       inferences based upon the same set of facts, but they are reasonable
       inferences when looking at the evidence. We first have to infer that
       she shot the gun. This is a reasonable inference because she is holding
       the gun, and it is still smoking. Next, we have to infer that she shot the
       person on the floor. This inference is based in part on the original
       inference that she shot the gun, but is also a reasonable inference
       drawn from the circumstances.

Id. at 16.

       By his own admission in his interview with Coleman, appellant was the only
person in the house with Wiebke after Cox left; and according to appellant,
Wiebke was alive at that time. There is no evidence that anyone else was in the
house that night. In accordance with the reasoning in Hooper, the trial court's

                                            18
finding that appellant caused the fatal injuries to Wiebke is therefore a reasonable
inference, not an impermissible speculation.

      Moreover, other evidence gives rise to reasonable inferences in favor of the
verdict. A number of witnesses testified that appellant's appearance belied his
claim that when he awakened, the house already was full of smoke. Leaving aside
the clean shirt, which the evidence indicates was given to appellant sometime after
he exited the house, the record contains testimony that appellant had no soot on his
face, around his nose, or his neck. There is no evidence that appellant washed after
exiting the house. Rios provided contrary evidence, testifying that appellant's skin
appeared covered in soot. It was within the trial court's purview to resolve or
reconcile this conflicting evidence. See Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638.

      Two of the arson investigators testified there was a delay from the start of
the fire until the placement of the 9-1-1 call. Specifically, the record reflects
neighbors did not call 9-1-1 until after the explosion, which the evidence showed
occurred after the fire started. There is no evidence that appellant called 9-1-1.
Appellant's claim that he was asleep until the fire was well under way would
explain his failure to call. Even so, as the exclusive judge of the credibility of
witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence, the trial court was not
required to accept appellant's version of events in light of the testimony that
appellant did not appear to have been in the house when it filled with smoke. See
id.

      Two of the investigators testified that had appellant been sitting in the
recliner when the oxygen canister exploded, he would have been injured. Under
appellant's version of events, he could have fled the house after the fire started but
before the canister exploded, thus explaining his lack of injury. But, appellant said
he did not hear the canister explode, even though it was loud enough to wake the

                                          19
neighbors and rattle the house next door. It was for the trial court, as the trier of
fact, to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the
evidence and to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See id.

      We do not disagree with appellant's argument that Cox's behavior was
suspicious. Yet, any evidence that Cox also may have been involved does not
necessarily exculpate appellant.

                                      Conclusion

      Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
conclude that a rational trier of could have found the elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole issue and
affirm the trial court's judgment.

                                          /s/        Kem Thompson Frost
                                                     Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Yates.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

      4Senior Justice Leslie Brock Yates sitting by assignment.

                                                20
c

zr-
>
                  1-
                       o
                        c

      I                     -_/
>r                           O
_.
                                  0
          o
              _
                              N