Brandon v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 06-21-00085-CR |
| Parties | PATRICK BRANDON, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do Not Publish
Date Submitted: April 5, 2022
On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 47754-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
After a jury found Patrick Brandon, Jr., guilty of aggravated robbery, he was sentenced to sixty years' confinement in prison and ordered to pay a fine and court costs. In the same proceeding, Brandon was also convicted of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.[1]As a result of those convictions, Brandon was sentenced to prison for twenty years, five years, and ten years, respectively. The trial court ordered the four sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, Brandon maintains that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he used or exhibited a firearm during the commission of the robbery (2) the State violated his equal protection rights by exercising peremptory strikes to remove two of the three African American panel members within the strike zone, (3) the trial court erred when it assessed duplicative court costs, (4) the trial court erred by cumulating the fines assessed in multiple counts, and (5) the trial court erred when it assessed time payment fees.
For the reasons below, we modify the trial court's judgment and the bill of costs by deleting the court costs and fees[2] and by changing the notation of Brandon's plea to the State's enhancement allegation from "not true" to "true." As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Varnell said, "[M]y immediate reaction was we're being robbed, so get all the money that was in my teller drawer and hand it over." Because the note said, "I have a gun," Varnell believed that she had to comply with the note's instructions, or she would have been shot. Varnell slid the note back to the robber, looked up, and then immediately began getting what she believed to be around $11,000.00 out of the vault. After giving him the money, he "turned around and walked out." Varnell said that the money was made up of multiple banded stacks of cash in denominations of hundreds, twenties, tens, fives, and ones.
After the initial commotion subsided, Varnell began having a panic attack. She said, "I couldn't get it out, they had no clue what was actually happening until I just screamed the word, you know, robbery; and so, yes, I did have an emotional outbreak." When the other employees realized that the bank had just been robbed, they began locking the bank's doors. Varnell said that she felt "no relief until [she] left that bank later on that day."
According to Varnell, during the robbery, she could only see the upper half of the robber's torso from behind the counter. She said that the individual was an African American male in his mid to late twenties and that he had some facial hair, but not a full beard. He was also wearing a red or black hat. She did not recall seeing any distinctive markings on him.
When Varnell gave her written statement to law enforcement after the robbery, she wrote that the robber's note said, "I will shoot you." Although her written statement differed from the actual note, Varnell said that she interpreted the robber's assertion that "[he had] a gun" to mean that "if [she] didn't follow those demands that [the] individual robbing the bank [would] shoot [her]." According to Varnell, she had previously received training related to dye packs and bait money,[3] and there had been dye packs in her drawer that day. But, because she felt threatened, she did not use them. Varnell left the bank around 5:30 p.m., went home, immediately packed a bag, and went to stay with her uncle for a week. She did not return to work until a week after the robbery, and she left her job at the bank about three months later. Varnell said that, when she did return to work, she was "[a]bsolutely" anxious and, at nighttime, she had had trouble sleeping.
On cross-examination, Varnell conceded that she neither saw a gun during the robbery nor saw the robber make any movements as if he had a gun. But she also explained that, from where she was, she could not see below the middle of his chest. According to Varnell, the robber did not act "necessarily out of the ordinary," and he did not raise his voice or use a menacing tone when speaking to her.
On the day of the robbery, Amber Campbell had been working at the bank as a financial relationship consultant. She had just returned from lunch when the robbery occurred. Campbell explained that the teller's windows were right across from her office, so she had a "straight view of the tellers." According to Campbell, she noticed an individual in front of Varnell's station, with one or two other customers in front of the robber. Campbell said that she made eye contact with him two or three times. But when he reached Varnell's window, Campbell could not see what was happening. She did, however, see the individual "walk out, and he [was] holding his shirt." Campbell said that, after he left the bank, Varnell "kind of collapse[d]" and then Campbell saw Varnell run into the back of the bank.[4] Realizing what had just happened, Campbell went to lock the bank's door.
Campbell believed the robber's shirt was short-sleeved, white, gray, or a light color, with red writing on it. She was certain he was wearing a red hat and red jeans. Campbell said that his shoes may have had red writing on them. After identifying Brandon in the courtroom, Campbell said that there was "[n]o doubt in [her] mind" that he was the individual who had robbed the bank. Campbell conceded, however, that she did not identify the robber immediately after the robbery. When asked how she could identify him in the courtroom, but was unable to identify him the day of the robbery, Campbell explained that the police may have asked her a "different question[,]" or "[m]aybe [she] was still a little taken back by it." Yet, she repeated that she was 100 percent sure that Brandon had been the robber. Campbell said that the robbery took place in about two or three minutes-"give or take"-and that she did not see a weapon during the incident. According to Campbell, the robbery was a significant event in her life, and the incident had caused her to worry about going to work in the future.
Kathryn A. Lumley, who was employed by Regions Bank in corporate security, testified that she was familiar with the bank's internal and external security.[5] On the day of the robbery, the bank's security cameras had been in working order. When Lumley watched the recordings and looked at the still shots taken from them, she did not see the robber display a weapon. Lumley said that, after the robbery, she spoke to Varnell, who told her that she did not give the robber a dye pack or a tracker because if she had, she would have been shot.
Jeffrey Bowles, who had been visiting Regions Bank a little after 1:00 p.m., testified that he had seen an individual walk out of the bank wearing a red hat and red pants. Bowles stated that the individual proceeded to get into a "Toyota like vehicle, like a four-door sedan, light in color." He then clarified that the vehicle had been silver. According to Bowles, the person had been "carrying something because when he came out of the exit -- the doors out of Regions he stuffed something up underneath his coat -- up underneath his arm." He said he did not see any type of firearm. Bowles believed that the individual entered the driver's side door of the vehicle and then headed south. Bowles stated that his car had been parked in the parking place adjacent to the silver car. According to Bowles, the person getting into the car was a younger African American man who had been wearing a brightly colored hat.
On May 3, 2018, around 2:00 a.m., patrol officer Danny Isonhood was sitting in his patrol vehicle "observing a specific area[,]" which was known for its high crime rate. Isonhood observed a silver car driving northbound without stopping at a stop sign. Isonhood began pursuing the vehicle at a high rate of speed, and the driver, who was subsequently identified as Brandon, eventually stopped.
Heath DeGarmo, the backup officer at the scene, testified that, after he arrived, he placed Brandon in handcuffs and proceeded to search his car, finding narcotics, marihuana and a "clear baggie that had a white powdery substance that [he] believed to be powder cocaine." In a subsequent search of the vehicle, officers found a large amount of money in the console, some of which was banded, but "[t]here was also loose money throughout." According to DeGarmo, a loaded Taurus 9-millimeter pistol was also found underneath the driver's seat.
Brandon contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated robbery because the State did not prove that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the robbery.
In evaluating legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial