Court Opinion

ID: 9947216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 12:10:05.677962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:12.588251
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-23-00120-CR
     ___________________________

 STANLEY LAROY FORD, JR., Appellant

                      V.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 396th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
        Trial Court No. 1662965

  Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Appellant Stanley Laroy Ford, Jr. of the offenses of murder,

possession of a firearm by a felon, and tampering with physical evidence. The jury

assessed his punishment at 80 years’ confinement for the murder offense, 12 years’

confinement for the possession of a firearm by a felon offense, and 5 years’

confinement for the tampering with physical evidence offense.             The trial court

sentenced Ford accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. In his

sole issue, Ford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

                                I. BACKGROUND

      On October 18, 2020, Ford shot and killed Ibrahim Johnson at the Metro 7000

apartment complex. Asia Cobb testified that Johnson was her boyfriend and that they

moved into the apartment complex sometime in 2020. According to Cobb, Johnson

and Ford—who also lived in the apartment complex—initially had a cordial

relationship, but later there was tension between them resulting in escalating

confrontations. In the days prior to the shooting, the police were called numerous

times concerning complaints between Johnson and Ford and his friends. Cobb

recalled an incident where Ford and his friend came to the couple’s apartment to fight

Johnson.

      Cobb testified that on the day of the shooting, she and Johnson took their dog

to a dog park. When they returned, Ford approached them with a gun. Ford asked

Johnson why he had been on Ford’s porch. Before Johnson could respond, Ford

                                           2
fired a shot. Johnson ran, and Ford chased after him. Cobb stated that Ford shot

again, and Johnson tripped and fell. After Johnson fell, Ford stood over him and shot

him. Cobb testified that Ford ran in the direction of his apartment after shooting

Johnson.

      Another resident of the apartment complex testified that he was outside at the

time of the shooting. He heard a shot and ducked between two vehicles. The

resident then saw Ford stand over Johnson and shoot him.

      Detective Jerry Cedillo with the Fort Worth Police Department arrived at the

scene. He stated that Ford was identified as a potential suspect, and an arrest warrant

was issued for him. On November 3, 2020, Ford was stopped for a traffic stop and

placed under arrest. Detective Cedillo interviewed Ford, and a video of that interview

was played before the jury. Ford told Detective Cedillo that on the morning of the

shooting, he had received a call that Johnson was on his balcony trying to break into

his apartment.   Ford said that Johnson had made previous threats to harm his

children. Ford admitted to Detective Cedillo that he confronted Johnson and then

shot him at close range.

                   II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

      Federal due process requires that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt

every element of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S. Ct.

2781, 2787 (1979); see U.S. Const. amend XIV. The Jackson standard of review, which

is explained below, is the “only standard that a reviewing court should apply in

                                          3
determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal

offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks v. State,

323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (overruling Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d

126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).        “[W]e review the sufficiency of the evidence

establishing the elements of a criminal offense under the single sufficiency standard

set out in Jackson v. Virginia.” Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014).

      In our evidentiary-sufficiency review, we view all evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found

the crime’s essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319,

99 S. Ct. at 2789; Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The

factfinder alone judges the evidence’s weight and credibility. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 38.04; Martin v. State, 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).

We may not re-evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our

judgment for the factfinder’s. Queeman, 520 S.W.3d at 622. Instead, we determine

whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based on the cumulative force of the

evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Braughton v. State,

569 S.W.3d 593, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232

(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage

in a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the

evidence.”). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences

                                           4
in favor of the verdict, and we must defer to that resolution. Braughton, 569 S.W.3d

at 608.

                                III. DISCUSSION

      In his sole issue, Ford argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for murder. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

support his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon or tampering with

physical evidence.

      Ford specifically argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for murder because he acted in response to Johnson’s threatening his

children and attempting to break into his apartment. Ford requested jury instructions

on sudden passion,1 defense of a third party, and self-defense. His requests were

denied. Ford does not argue on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his

requested jury instructions or complain that the jury was improperly charged.

Although Ford argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for murder because he acted in self-defense or in defense of others, those

defenses were not before the jury.

      A person commits the offense of murder if he:

             (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or

      1
       Sudden passion means passion directly caused by and arising out of
provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which
passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former
provocation. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(a)(2).

                                           5
              (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act
              clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
              individual.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1)(2).

       The jury heard evidence that Ford confronted an unarmed Johnson and then

fired a shot. Johnson attempted to flee, but Ford chased after him. After Johnson

fell to the ground, Ford stood over him and shot him at close range. Ford admitted

to these facts in an interview with Detective Cedillo. Based on this evidence, a

rational jury could have found Ford murdered Johnson; therefore, it is sufficient to

support Ford’s conviction for murder. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789;

Evans v. State, 440 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Tex. App.—Waco, 2013, pet. ref’d). We overrule

Ford’s sole issue.

                                IV. CONCLUSION

       We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                                    /s/ Brian Walker

                                                    Brian Walker
                                                    Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 29, 2024

                                           6