Clements v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Sarah Beth Landau Justice.
• Docket Number: 01-22-00073-CR
• Decision Date: 06 July 2023
• Parties: MATTHEW CLEMENTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

1

MATTHEW CLEMENTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 01-22-00073-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

July 6, 2023

Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1634159

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sarah Beth Landau Justice.

Matthew Clements was convicted of aggravated robbery. During the punishment phase of the trial, Clements pleaded "true" to enhancement paragraph one and "not true" to enhancement paragraph two. The jury found both enhancement paragraphs "true," and Clements was sentenced to 50 years' confinement. Clements complains that (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) evidence of extraneous offenses should not have been admitted during the guilt-innocence phase of trial; (3) it was error to allow a jury instruction that commented on the weight of the evidence; and (4) evidence of extraneous offenses should not have been admitted during the punishment phase. Because there is sufficient evidence to support Clements's conviction, the evidence of extraneous offenses was properly admitted, and the jury instruction was permissible, we affirm.

Background

A. Aggravated Robbery at Taco Cabana

On May 29, 2019, T. Murray, the complainant, was working as a sales associate at a Walmart located at the intersection of Tidwell and Highway 290. During her break, she went to a Taco Cabana. She stopped in the Taco Cabana parking lot to let a vehicle pass in front of her, but the vehicle stopped. A man inside the vehicle pointed a gun at her and demanded money.

Murray held her hands in the air and told him she had no money on her. The man got angry and continued demanding money. The man was distracted by a family leaving the Taco Cabana, giving Murray a chance to run behind her car. The vehicle drove away. Murray tried to photograph the license plate with her phone, but she was only able to get photos of the vehicle not the license plate. Murray then called 911. Murray's husband arrived while she was waiting for the police, so she went back to Walmart to tell her manager what happened. Murray also discussed the incident with people at the Taco Cabana after she called the police.

Officer J. Wright responded to the 911 call. Murray told Officer Wright about the robbery and gave him her cell phone photos. Murray described the perpetrator as a white unshaven male wearing glasses, a hat, and a dirty white shirt. The vehicle was described as "a 90's [sic] model white pickup truck that had black appeared to be metal, headache rack^[1] behind the rear windshield. It had silver running boards with black steps. The back of the truck in the tailgate area was either lacking paint or dirty." No license plate number was provided because Murray's photo showed the vehicle had a paper license plate. The vehicle photo and description were provided to officers in the area. Officer Wright also described the suspect as a white male, unshaven, in his late 30s, with a chrome-colored firearm and black-rimmed glasses.

While still at Taco Cabana, Officer Wright received radio transmissions from other units in the area that another robbery was occurring in Spring Branch. Officer Wright and his partner went to that location. Meanwhile, Sgt. A. Miller was responding to a call about a suspicious white male with a weapon at the 2901 block of Bingle Road, near the Taco Cabana. The caller described the suspect's vehicle as a white, "old style" truck with paper license plates. The call was placed only 10 to 15 minutes after the police received the call about the Taco Cabana robbery. While searching the area, Sgt. Miller saw a dirty white truck with a black headache rack driven by a white man. Sgt. Miller notified Officer Wright, who was only a mile away, that he had spotted the suspect's vehicle. A pursuit of the truck began when more backup units arrived.

During the high-speed pursuit, a passenger, later identified as D. Landin, bailed out of the truck and was detained without incident. Landin told the police that he jumped out because Clements, the driver, was acting crazy. Officer Wright's pursuit of Clements ended when another patrol unit lost control and collided with his vehicle. But Officer K. Rodas continued to pursue Clements until he reached a dead-end street in a residential neighborhood. Clements exited the driver's side of the truck and fled on foot. An officer in a helicopter unit saw Clements trying to hide underneath a silver truck. Soon after, Officer Rodas detained Clements. Officer Rodas searched Clements and found a cell phone belonging to the victim of a different robbery. Officer Rodas also found a firearm nearby along the same route that Clements had fled. The gun had a brown slide, a black grip, and a chrome barrel. A baseball cap was also retrieved from the back of Clements's truck.

The next day, Murray met with Sgt. J. Delacruz who showed her a photo array that included Clements's photo. She narrowed it down to two photos before ultimately selecting the photo of Clements as the perpetrator. Murray also identified Clements at trial.

While in jail, on a recorded call, Clements stated that he was on his way to pick up a friend in Spring Branch when he decided to go on a "mission," a term that often refers to a robbery.^[2]

B. Extraneous Aggravated Robbery at Convenience Store

At trial, the State presented evidence of Clements's involvement in two other aggravated robberies that occurred close in time and proximity to the charged offense. J. Bautista-Mora testified that on May 29, 2019, he and his nine-year-old daughter were buying ice at 2900 Bingle Road when a white man pointed a black gun at them and ordered him to hand over his wallet. Bautista-Mora pulled out his wallet and told the gunman to come closer to get it. The gunman continued to demand that Bautista-Mora surrender his wallet, but he told the gunman he would call the police. The gunman fled the scene in a dirty white pickup truck, and Bautista-Mora called the police.

Officers showed Bautista-Mora a photographic array, but he could not identify the suspect because his face had been covered. At trial, he testified that he was sure that the white truck in the photograph taken by Murray was the truck the suspect was driving.

C. Extraneous Aggravated Robbery at Mattress Store

R. Reyes testified that on May 29, 2019, he witnessed a robbery at 2205 Bingle Road outside the mattress store owned by A. Delacruz, his brother-in-law. Reyes and Delacruz were sitting in front of the store when a white man pulled up in a dirty white truck. The man got out of the truck, pointed a black gun at Delacruz's head and said, "give me your fucking money." Delacruz handed over his wallet and cellphone, and the gunman fled in the truck.

Reyes testified that the gunman was wearing a dirty white shirt. He identified the truck in Murray's photograph as the same truck used by the gunman. Delacruz's cellphone was later recovered and returned by the police.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Clements contends that the evidence is insufficient because the eyewitness identification of him as the robber was unreliable and there is no other evidence connecting him to the location or the offense. The State argues that Murray's testimony was sufficient.

A. Standard of Review

We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence by considering all the evidence, in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to the factfinder to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the facts. Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750; Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Our role is that of a due process safeguard, and we consider only whether the factfinder reached a rational decision. See Malbrough v. State, 612 S.W.3d 537, 559 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd); see also Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (the reviewing court's role "is restricted to guarding against the rare occurrence when a fact finder does not act rationally").

"In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, a court must consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence." Malbrough, 612 S.W.3d at 559 (citing Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally probative in establishing the defendant's guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient. Malbrough, 612 S.W.3d at 559 (citing Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778). "For evidence to be sufficient, the State need not disprove all reasonable alternative hypotheses that are inconsistent with a defendant's guilt." Id. The appellate court "considers only whether the inferences necessary to establish guilt are reasonable based on the cumulative force of all the evidence when considered in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict." Id. (citing Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903; Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). We review factual sufficiency of the evidence under the same standard of review as that for legal sufficiency. See Edwards v. State, 497 S.W.3d 147, 156-57 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd).

B. Analysis

To convict Clements of aggravated robbery, the State was required to prove that (1) while committing theft of property owned by...