Aguilera v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 08-22-00021-CR |
| Parties | CARLOS AGUILERA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS,Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do Not Publish
Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 1 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20190C11221)
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Soto, J., Marion, C.J. (Ret.) Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (sitting by assignment)
A jury convicted Appellant Carlos Aguilera of driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) equal to or greater than 0.15. Appellant challenges his conviction in six issues, arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a bodycam video recording over Appellant's objections under Rules 401, 403, 404(b), and 801 of the Texas Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. For the following reasons, we affirm Appellant's conviction.
On the evening of December 6, 2019, Jesus Holmes was driving in El Paso, Texas, with his wife Flor Holmes when they noticed a brown Ford F-250 truck "consistent[ly]" swerving between lanes. As the truck continued on the road, Jesus and Flor saw it partially go off the street causing the motorist to overcorrect with a hard left turn, resulting in the truck jumping the curb and almost flipping over. The truck also momentarily went into the wrong lane of traffic. Jesus flashed his lights in an attempt to get the motorist's attention because he was "afraid that [the motorist] would kill himself, kill somebody else or there'd be a major accident where I wouldn't be able to avoid it." Flor called 911 to report the motorist's erratic driving.
The motorist, later identified as Appellant, eventually pulled into a Valero gas station, spent several minutes searching for something in the passenger compartment of the truck exited the truck, and walked into the store. Jesus parked his vehicle, and he and Flor continued to watch Appellant from a distance. Flor only saw Appellant exit the brown truck. Both Jesus and Flor positively identified Appellant in the courtroom as the person who was driving the truck at the time in question.
Horizon City Police Department Sergeant Kennen Greseth was dispatched to the Valero to investigate Appellant. Upon arriving, Sergeant Greseth spoke to Jesus, who pointed out Appellant as the driver of the truck. Sergeant Greseth did not see another person in the truck. After Appellant came out of the convenience store holding a bag containing two beers, Sergeant Greseth noticed that Appellant looked at him in a "suspicious" manner and began walking in the other direction. After making contact with Appellant, Sergeant Greseth noticed Appellant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and was unable to maintain his balance. Appellant repeatedly denied driving the truck and told Sergeant Greseth that his cousin was driving the truck but that his cousin had left. According to Sergeant Greseth, several other people appeared during the encounter and told the officer they had been drinking with Appellant at a restaurant. Sergeant Greseth asked Appellant to perform standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), but Appellant refused. Sergeant Greseth arrested Appellant for driving while intoxicated. Appellant agreed to provide a sample of his breath; subsequent testing at the police station yielded BAC results of 0.159 and 0.160 approximately one hour after the encounter began.
The State charged Appellant with driving while intoxicated with a BAC of 0.15 or greater. In addition to the witness testimony above, the State offered into evidence Flor's 911 call and two video recordings from Sergeant Greseth's bodycam. Appellant objected to the admission of the videos on various grounds that we enumerate in detail below. The trial court overruled Appellant's objections in part and admitted redacted versions of the video recordings into evidence. The jury found Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.15. The trial court assessed punishment of 365 days' imprisonment, probated for fifteen months, along with a $250 fine and various terms and conditions of community supervision. This appeal followed.
Appellant challenges his conviction in six issues. He argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he operated the truck or that his BAC was greater than or equal to 0.15 at the time of driving. Appellant also raises five issues challenging the admission of the bodycam video recordings; he argues that the admission of Jesus's and Flor's statements contained within the video recordings violated Texas Rules of Evidence 801, 401, 403, and 404(b) as well as Appellant's right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause. See Tex. R. Evid. 801, 401, 403, 404(b). We address each issue in turn.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process requires every conviction to be supported by legally sufficient evidence. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In a legal-sufficiency challenge, we focus solely on whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, would permit any rational jury to find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 912 ().
Applying that standard, we recognize that our system designates the jury as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and the weight attached to the testimony of each witness. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020); Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Only the jury acts "to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. In doing so, the jury may choose to believe or disbelieve any testimony. Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The jury remains at liberty to believe "all, some, or none of a witness's testimony." Metcalf, 597 S.W.3d at 855. When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to that determination. Dobbs, 434 S.W.3d at 170, citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, "[w]e are not to sit as a thirteenth juror reweighing the evidence or deciding whether we believe the evidence established the element in contention beyond a reasonable doubt[.]"Blankenship v. State, 780 S.W.2d 198, 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (en banc). Instead, "we test the evidence to see if it is at least conclusive enough for a reasonable factfinder to believe based on the evidence that the element is established beyond a reasonable doubt." Id., citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318. "In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all the evidence admitted at trial, even improperly admitted evidence." Lopez v. State, 615 S.W.3d 238, 249 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2020, pet. ref'd) (citing Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)).
Appellant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.15. A person commits that offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, and if it is proved that a specimen of the person's blood, breath, or urine showed a BAC of 0.15 or more at the time the analysis was performed. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), (d). In particular, Appellant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish (1) that he was the person who operated the truck and (2) that he was intoxicated at the time of driving. We consider each element below.
We first address Appellant's argument that the State failed to present "credible evidence" that Appellant operated a vehicle. Operation is not statutorily defined; however, courts examining the sufficiency of the evidence to support operation have concluded that a person operates a vehicle when "the totality of the circumstances . . . demonstrate that the defendant took action to affect the functioning of his vehicle in a manner that would enable the vehicle's use." Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 650-51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
At trial, the State presented testimony from Jesus and Flor indicating that after seeing the brown truck being driven erratically, they followed it to a convenience store and saw a man exit the driver's side of the truck. Flor testified that she kept the truck in sight at all times. While in the courtroom, both Jesus and Flor identified Appellant as the driver of the truck. Moreover, Sergeant Greseth testified that he did not see anybody else present in the vehicle. Given the totality of the circumstances, this is sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant operated the truck. See Vedia v. State No. 04-18-00393-CR, 2019 WL 3208817, at *5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio July 17, 2019, pet. ref'd) () (legally sufficient evidence supported the defendant's operation of a vehicle where an eyewitness testified that she saw the defendant driving the vehicle despite the witness's admission that she was not "one hundred percent...
To continue reading
Request your trial