Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-15-00417-CR,NO. 01-15-00416-CR, NO. 01-15-00418-CR,01-15-00416-CR |
| Citation | 497 S.W.3d 147 |
| Parties | Travis Marcellaus Edwards, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Daucie Schindler, Assistant Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Devon Anderson, District Attorney—Harris County, Jessica A. Caird, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, TX, for State.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.
A jury found appellant, Travis Marcellaus Edwards, guilty of the offenses of aggravated assault of a security officer,1 aggravated robbery,2 and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.3 After finding true the allegation in an enhancement paragraph in each indictment that appellant had been previously convicted of a felony offense, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty years for the offense of aggravated assault of a security officer, thirty years for the offense of aggravated robbery, and ten years for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently, and it entered an affirmative finding that appellant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offenses of aggravated assault of a security officer and aggravated robbery. In four issues, appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and admitting certain evidence.
We modify the trial court's judgments and affirm as modified.
Angel Madrazo, the complainant, testified that on June 21, 2012, while he was working as a security officer at a “game room,” a “shooting incident occurr [ed].” As a “certified security officer,” he carried a 9–millimeter gun and a badge with the words “security officer” “[o]n [its] front.” At the game room, his duties included “working at the door,” “check[ing]” that no one entered the game room “with any type of weapon,” and “watch[ing] over the customers.” Typically, Madrazo, armed with his gun, would sit in a chair near the front door in the lobby portion of the game room.4 In order to “enter” the game room, a person was required to be a “member,” and Madrazo knew “[a]ll” of the members of the game room.
During his shift on June 21, Madrazo, standing in the lobby of the game room, saw a “white Dodge Stratus,” with four men inside, parked directly in front of the game room in an “[ab]normal” place in the parking lot. Appellant and another man, neither of whom Madrazo had ever seen before, “got out” of the car and approached the game room. Madrazo asked the men “[i]f they were members and if they had been [t]here before,” to which they responded “[y]es.” However, Madrazo felt that “something was wrong” and became suspicious.
Madrazo asked the two men to “produce [their] memberships,” but neither complied. Appellant then “pulled out a gun,” “came right in front” of Madrazo, and “practically put the gun to [his] face.” Because Madrazo did not have time to “pull out” his gun, he kicked appellant, who then fired his gun at Madrazo. Appellant and the other man “took off running.”
Madrazo, with his gun “in ... hand,” followed the two men out of the game room. Appellant and the other man ran in opposite directions, while the two men who had remained in the Dodge Stratus, exited the car, got behind it, and “fired ... shots” at Madrazo. When appellant reached a nearby “wall” and was “safe,” he also “started shooting,” “rapidly” and “venomous[ly],” at Madrazo. All four men “fired simultaneously” at Madrazo “from different angles,” and Madrazo responded by firing his gun about “15 to 16” times. When appellant and the three other men “felt that the police were close by,” they “took off running.”
After the shooting, a Harris County Sherriff's Office (“HCSO”) deputy showed Madrazo a photographic array of six men, and Madrazo identified appellant as the man who came into the game room and confronted him with a gun. It was not “hard” for Madrazo “to pick [appellant] out.” He was “[a] hundred percent” certain that appellant was the man who had “pulled the gun on [him],” and he could not “forget” appellant. Madrazo explained that he was “afraid for [his] life” when appellant “pulled” out the gun, and based on his experience “working at game rooms,” he opined that appellant had come to the game room to commit a robbery. Madrazo, however, did note that neither appellant nor the man who had entered the game room with appellant verbally “demand[ed][any] money” from Madrazo.
Maria Medina testified that on June 21, 2012, while she was working at the game room doing “housekeeping” and “pass[ing] out ... snacks[ ][and] food,” two men “walked in” and “wanted to take [Madrazo's] gun away from him.” When the two men tried to take Madrazo's gun, “one of the two men” shot his gun. After the shot was fired, Madrazo and the two men left the game room, with the two men running “to the right.” Medina noted that only a single gunshot was fired inside the lobby of the game room, and she had previously “see[n] a large amount of cash” in the game room's office.
Katherine Butler testified that she was a member of the game room and was present when the shooting occurred. While Madrazo was standing inside the lobby, she was inside the game room “on the third machine.” When a “guy” outside of the game room tried to enter by pushing the front door open, Madrazo told him that he could not. The “guy” then shot a gun. After the gun “went off,” Madrazo “grabbed his gun and went out the door.” There was “shooting everywhere,” with “bullets ... coming from everywhere.” Butler explained that “several shots” were shot at Madrazo, who was trying to “protect” the people inside of the game room, and she noted that the game room contained “[s]lot machines,” into which a person would “put money” and “could win up to $600 or $700 ... or $1,000.”
Curtis Young testified that he had “gamble[d]” at the game room “[m]any times” and had won “a little bit more” than $2,000 there. He noted that the game room, which had an “ATM” machine, had “about a hundred and something games” and members “gamble[d]” with cash, namely “[h]undreds, fifties, twenties, [and] tens.” According to Young, it was “possible ... to win a substantial amount of money,” as much as $20,000, at the game room. And he had been “concern[ed]” about “getting robbed” at the game room because “it happen [ed] a lot.”
On the day of the shooting, as Young “approached” the game room, he saw a Dodge Stratus abnormally parked in front. He then saw the security officer and another “guy” “tussling.” When the security officer “kicked” at the other “guy,” the “guy” pulled out his gun and “started shooting” at the security officer, who subsequently “started shooting back.” Several other “guys” then exited the Dodge Stratus, and “at least three” of the men “[f]ire[d] their weapon[s]” in the security officer's direction. The “guy,” with whom the security officer had the “confrontation,” was one of the men “shooting.” Young noted that during the incident, he did not hear anyone say, “[g]ive me the money,” “[p]ut your hands up,” or “[e]mpty your pockets.” And none of the men “tr[ied] to get any money from anyone in the parking lot.”
During Young's testimony, the trial court admitted into evidence a tape recording of the telephone call that Young made for emergency assistance. During the call, Young stated that there was a “shootout,” with “five guys shooting” near a “white Dodge” in the parking lot. Young described the “guys” as “young, black males” in their “20s.” And he noted that the security officer was “shooting back” and the “guys” “ran off” towards some apartments.
Ashley Alexander testified that she owned the Dodge Stratus that had been parked in front of the game room on the day of the shooting. The last time that she had seen her car was in June 2012 before it was “stolen.” Alexander explained that she did not drive the car to the game room location and was not at the game room on the day of the shooting. She further noted that she did not know appellant, did not lend her car to anyone, and was sleeping at the time her car was stolen.
HCSO Deputy R. Rincon testified that he was assigned to investigate the game room shooting. During the incident, several “suspects were seen” near a car that was “found” “within feet of the game room in the parking lot,” and these “suspects” “took cover behind the vehicle when the shootout occurred.”5 The crime scene unit investigator, HCSO Deputy G. Clayton, “lifted” a handprint from the car, which had been “left at the scene,” and “it came back” with a match to appellant. Subsequently, Rincon complied a photographic array of six men and showed it to Madrazo, who “immediate[ly]” identified appellant “as the person who approached him at the game room on June 21, 2012.” In regard to appellant, Madrazo stated,
Deputy Rincon further explained that the game room actually had “two doors” because it had a “greeting room.” The “greeting room” was “inside the game room,” but it was not actually “where the [gaming] machines” were located. According to Rincon, it was in the “greeting room” where appellant fired the initial shot. And he noted that no verbal “demand[ ]” for money had been made during the incident.
Deputy Clayton testified that on June 21, 2012, he was dispatched to investigate the crime scene at the game room after the shooting. He recovered a “number of spent shell casings” from the game room's parking lot and a “9–millimeter semi-automatic weapon,” which belonged to “the security guard at the scene.” Clayton explained that he found “numerous shell casings” “going down the right hallway from the game room.” Based on the number of “shell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malbrough v. State
...of the evidence under the same appellate 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) ; Ervin v. State , 331 S.W.3d 49, 52–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd). As the Court of......
-
Adell v. State
... ... that appellant was at work for less than thirty-three minutes ... on the morning of February 21, 2019 ... [ 49 ] Additional women testified at trial ... about their relationships with appellant between 2016 and ... 2019 ... [ 50 ] See Edwards v. State , 497 ... S.W.3d 147, 155 n.8 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet ... ref'd) ("Facebook Messenger is a mobile tool that ... allows users to instantly send chat messages to friends on ... Facebook. Messages are received on [users'] mobile ... phones." ... ...
-
King v. State
...believing the police were on the way, fled the scene without retrieving his phone from the top of the car. 497 S.W.3d 147, 161 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd). In contrast, King did not voluntarily flee from the scene; rather, he was taken from the scene in custody by law e......
-
Johnson v. State
...including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and the method of committing the crime...." Edwards v. State , 497 S.W.3d 147, 157 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd) (internal quotations omitted); see also Guevara v. State , 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ; Le......