English v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 01-20-00139-CR |
| Parties | WILLIAM HOSEA ENGLISH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 119th District Court [1] Tom Green County, Texas Trial Court Case No. B-17-0829-SA
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Guerra, and Farris.
A jury convicted William Hosea English of aggravated robbery. Tex Penal Code § 29.03. English pleaded true to two enhancements, and the trial court sentenced him to 35 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge. We affirm.
In the early morning hours of April 20, 2017, a man walked into a convenience store, pointed a gun at the store clerk, and demanded the cash from the register. The man had a plastic bag covering his face during the robbery. The clerk gave the man $46 from the register. Once the man left the store, the clerk called 911. The San Angelo Police Department responded a few minutes later.
Upon arrival at the store, several officers viewed surveillance video of the incident. A few hours later, one of the officers saw English at a car wash a few miles away. The officer believed that English looked like the man robbing the store in the surveillance video. When initially approached, English gave officers an incorrect name and birth date. Once they ascertained his identity, the officers realized that English had a parole warrant, and he was arrested. On the roof of a business adjacent to the car wash, law enforcement found a blue polo-style shirt they believed English wore during the robbery. English was interviewed at the jail, and his clothing and shoes were seized. He was later charged with aggravated robbery.
At trial, Dale Holcomb, the convenience store clerk, testified that a man with a plastic bag covering his face came into the store, pointed a gun at him, and demanded money. He gave the man the contents of the cash drawer, which was about $46. He also stated that the robber was about 5'10" and was wearing a dark shirt. He could not determine the style of shirt because the plastic bag around the man's head impeded his view.
The store manager testified about arriving at the store after the robbery to review surveillance video footage. During his testimony, the jury viewed surveillance videos with audio showing the robbery suspect walking into the convenience store, robbing the store clerk, and leaving. The jury also viewed surveillance video from earlier in the day that appeared to show the same suspect, without his face covered browsing a beverage aisle.
Officer M. Rodriguez testified that he responded to the convenience store dispatch call. When he arrived, another officer was inside talking to Holcomb. Officer Rodriguez watched surveillance video of the incident. Later, he got a call that another officer had located a potential suspect at a nearby car wash. He went to the car wash and observed that while the suspect in the robbery was wearing a blue polo-style shirt the suspect at the car wash was wearing a grey t-shirt. As other officers dealt with the suspect, Officer Rodriguez returned to the convenience store and watched video from hours before the robbery showing the robber in the beverage aisle of the store. He recognized the man in the video as the same person at the car wash. He testified that the individual was wearing the same shoes. He identified English in court as the man in the video and the man arrested at the car wash.
Sergeant A. Callum responded to the robbery call in a supervisory capacity. After watching the surveillance video, he patrolled the area around the convenience store. In his experience convenience store robberies happen in clusters, so he checked on nearby stores while looking for a potential suspect. About two hours later, he saw a man at a car wash that looked identical to the man in the surveillance video, except the man at the car wash was not wearing a face covering. He radioed for back up and detained English. At first, English gave Sergeant Callum a fake name and date of birth. Using the computer database, Sergeant Callum identified English and arrested him for an outstanding warrant. English had his state issued identification card and birth certificate in his pocket, but he never admitted to giving law enforcement a fake name.
Officer T. Gonzales testified that he responded to the car wash when he heard that Sergeant Callum was there with a possible suspect. Officer Gonzales helped determine English's true name. During his testimony, the State introduced and the court admitted several photographs into evidence. Officer Gonzales explained that the photographs, taken at the county jail, showed English in the clothes he was wearing when arrested: a grey t-shirt with a logo on the front and blue jeans. Officer Gonzales also explained that a photo of a left shoe was the shoe that English was wearing when arrested.
Detective R. Cercone responded to the robbery at the convenience store, viewed the surveillance videos, and then continued back into service. A few hours later, he and another officer drove to the car wash where Sgt. Callum had detained a suspect. The suspect was wearing a grey undershirt, unlike the suspect in the surveillance video, who was wearing a blue collared shirt.
Detective Cercone and the other officer remained at the car wash to look for the gun used in the robbery while English was transported to jail. They checked the roof of an adjacent laundromat. About five feet onto the roof, they found a blue shirt. Detective Cercone testified that the shirt had been recently put on the roof because everything else on the roof was covered in dust, but the shirt was not. The jury viewed a photograph of the shirt where it was found on the roof. They also viewed photographs of the shirt after it was seized by the officers.
Detective K. Reeves testified that she first spoke with English at the jail. English told her that the car he was driving when stopped at the car wash belonged to his brother. In an effort to establish English's alibi, Detective Reeves asked English where he had been during the day of the robbery. English told Detective Reeves that on the day in question, he met his brother for lunch. His brother also gave him the car that English drove for the rest of the day. He denied going to the convenience store. Initially, English told Detective Reeves that he had been to a different location of the same store, but Detective Reeves was unable to verify the statement. She checked the other locations' surveillance video and receipts for purchases, but neither confirmed that English had been in the store. Aside from these details, English did not provide specifics of what he did or where he was. At the end of the second interview, Detective Reeves seized the pants and shoes that English was wearing when arrested.
The jury found English guilty of aggravated robbery. English pleaded true to two enhancements, and the trial court sentenced him to 35 years' imprisonment.
In his first issue, English contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. We disagree.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-20 (1979). See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Under the Jackson standard, evidence is insufficient when, considered in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found that each essential element of the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). If an appellate court finds the evidence insufficient, it must reverse the judgment and enter an order of acquittal. Estrella v. State, 546 S.W.3d 789, 797 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2018, pet. refd).
We consider both direct and circumstantial evidence as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. Jurors may choose to believe or disbelieve any part of a witness's testimony. Gonzalez v. State, 522 S.W.3d 48, 56 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). We resolve inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778 ("When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination.").
Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. "Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
A person commits aggravated robbery if he commits robbery and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. Tex. Penal Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial