Garcia v. State

Decision Date26 June 2019
Docket NumberNO. 09-17-00305-CR,09-17-00305-CR
Citation578 S.W.3d 106
Parties Orlando GARCIA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Angela Mann Kneeland, Wayln G. Thompson, Beaumont, for Appellee.

David W. Barlow, Beaumont, for Appellant.

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

CHARLES KREGER, Justice

A Jefferson County grand jury indicted Orlando Garcia for the offense of murder. The indictment alleged that Garcia intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Rhydan Bolton by shooting him with a firearm on or about January 19, 2015.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (West 2019).2 The State also alleged an enhancement, as Garcia had a prior felony conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon. A jury convicted Garcia for the offense of murder. See id. Garcia pled "true" to the enhancement paragraph during punishment. The jury assessed punishment, and the trial judge sentenced Garcia to seventy years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Corrections. Garcia appeals his conviction and presents eight issues for our review.

In issues one through four, Garcia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts the evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain the conviction because: (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove Garcia caused the death of the complainant; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged offense was committed intentionally; (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged offense was committed knowingly; and (4) the trial court erred in denying Garcia's motion for instructed verdict of not guilty for insufficient evidence. In issues five through seven, Garcia complains the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present hearsay statements allegedly made by Kristopher Garcia through witnesses, (5) Natalie Castillo, (6) Kristina Sanchez, and (7) Diego Torres, respectively. Finally, in his eighth issue, Garcia contends the jury charge was so misleading as to cause egregious harm to Garcia as a matter of law, as it failed to properly charge the jury about accomplice testimony. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background

After midnight on Monday, January 19, 2015, college students Rhydan Bolton and Kerrick Madison drove into a convenience store parking lot on the corner of Florida and Highland Streets in Beaumont. Kerrick drove Bolton's blue Scion that evening, and Bolton rode in the passenger's seat. Video evidence played for the jury showed two men in dark clothing approached the car and fired at least eighteen shots from semi-automatic weapons into Bolton's vehicle, killing Bolton. Madison escaped injury in the incident.

II. The State's Theory and Evidence
A. The State's Theory

From the trial's outset, the State tried this case under a party theory of liability.

References throughout the record were to Garcia and his cousin, Kristopher Garcia, acting in concert.3 ,4 The State contended Garcia and Kristopher were angry about being shorted in a drug deal and sought revenge against a single individual. Bolton was an innocent victim, who Garcia and Kristopher mistakenly believed was the person who shorted them in the drug transaction.

B. Tiger Turner's Testimony5

Tiger was fourteen years old when this incident occurred. He testified that around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. on January 18, 2015, he left a friend's house to walk to a store and purchase snacks. He said that as he walked home from the store by himself, he heard a scream and someone say something about a drive-by. Then, people he did not know suddenly hopped out of a white SUV or truck and began chasing him. Tiger estimated two or three Hispanic people chased him, and while a man ultimately caught him, girls chased him as well. The abductors placed him on the floorboard of the backseat of the truck and covered his head with a bag.

Tiger testified that they drove him around to an unknown location. Eventually, they ended up at a garage or warehouse, which he identified from the sound of the door opening and closing. At the warehouse, five or six people were present while they beat Tiger and asked him questions. Tiger testified they asked about his "homeboys" and specifically, an individual named "Anthony." Tiger told them he had a classmate in the eighth grade named Anthony, but his abductors were not satisfied. Tiger did not know the person they were seeking.

After questioning him, his abductors placed him on the backseat floorboard again and covered him up. His abductors then dropped him off on the street by his house at around 2:00 a.m. After Tiger's mother saw how he was beaten, she took him to the emergency room the next morning. Tiger spoke with the police and gave them a statement.

C. Natalie Castillo's Testimony

Natalie Castillo testified that in 2015, she dated and lived with Garcia's cousin, Kristopher, in a house on Victoria Street in Beaumont. Natalie testified that on the evening of January 18, 2015, she and Kristopher barbecued at their house and several people attended, including Kristina Sanchez and Juana. Natalie said that around 10 p.m., Kristopher said he was going to "Lou Lou's" house to meet Garcia. "Lou Lou" is Garcia's sister, Marylou, who lived on Washington Street.6

Natalie testified that Kristopher and Garcia sold marijuana. According to Natalie, Kristopher met Garcia at Marylou's house on that day to count money from a drug deal. Natalie said that she and everyone else stayed at the barbecue while Kristopher met with Garcia. Natalie estimated Kristopher's meeting with Garcia lasted only about fifteen minutes, and when Kristopher returned to the barbecue, he was angry because someone gave them fake money for the drugs. Natalie testified that Garcia and Kristopher thought an individual named "Dulla," who she eventually learned was Anthony Green, had given them the fake money. Kristopher told Natalie that they would worry about it later, which Natalie understood to mean that he would confront Anthony about the fake money.

Natalie testified that she, Kristopher's brother R.J., Juana, Kristina, and Kristopher eventually left the barbecue in a white Ford pickup to load tortillas at a warehouse in Beaumont rented by Garcia and his mother. Natalie identified a photograph of the white Ford pickup, and told the jury that Kristopher often drove the truck. Natalie explained that while Garcia owned the truck, Kristopher often used the truck to load tortillas on Sundays and Tuesdays.

Natalie testified that on the way to the warehouse, Kristopher stopped when they saw "three black males" walking on the side of the road. Everyone but Natalie chased the three boys. Natalie testified they caught one of the boys and put him on the backseat floorboard, placed a blanket over his head, and asked him questions about Anthony. Natalie explained that the boy acted like he did not know anything.

Natalie told the jury they then picked up Garcia at a corner store and went to the warehouse where they planned to load tortillas. Natalie testified that Garcia and Kristopher brought the boy they picked up into a room at the warehouse. Natalie, Kristina, and Juana stood in the hallway of the warehouse. Natalie told the jury she heard the boy crying, screaming, and asking for help. Natalie estimated the boy was thirteen or fourteen, and she saw Garcia hit the boy while he was in the truck.

According to Natalie, the boy mentioned the name "Diego" while being questioned. The group left the warehouse with the boy and met Diego at a corner store. Garcia and Kristopher asked Diego questions about Anthony. Afterwards, the group, including Diego and the boy, returned to Marylou's home. Natalie told the jury that while Diego voluntarily met the group at the corner store, Kristopher and Garcia placed Diego in the truck and covered him with a blanket, along with the boy. Natalie testified that when they arrived at Marylou's around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., Kristopher and Garcia took Diego and the boy into a room in the rear of the house while she, Juana, and Kristina sat in the living room. Natalie said she heard yelling and belts hitting someone, but she could not hear what anyone said. Natalie observed later that Diego and the boy had been beaten.

Natalie told the jury that she, R.J., and Juana left Marylou's house around 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. to finish loading tortillas at the warehouse. Natalie testified that she was one hundred percent certain Garcia was at Marylou's house that evening. She also explained to the jury that she saw Garcia holding a handgun before she left Marylou's home to go to the warehouse.

According to Natalie, she "[was] back at the warehouse somehow at 1:30 a.m." on the morning of January 19, 2015. Around this time, Kristopher, Garcia, and Garcia's brother-in-law D.J. returned to the warehouse.7 Natalie stated they seemed nervous. She described them as being "jumpy" and "hype[d]." According to Natalie, Kristopher said "[w]e got him." Natalie explained she understood that to mean that Kristopher and Garcia killed Anthony. At some point, R.J. brought Natalie home, but she was unsure of the time. The next morning, Natalie learned someone had been shot, and she thought Kristopher and Garcia were responsible for the shooting.

Eventually, Natalie went to the police and gave a statement. According to Natalie, Garcia called her from jail and wanted to know why she talked to police. Natalie took his demand for an explanation as a threat. Garcia's mother also called her to ask her why she was cooperating with the police.

D. Kristina Sanchez's Testimony8

Kristina Sanchez testified that on MLK weekend of 2015, she attended a barbecue with Juana, Kristopher, and Natalie at Kristopher's house. While Kristina acknowledged that she and Garcia had a romantic relationship at one time, she denied she was Garcia's girlfriend. When she arrived at Kristopher's house to help prepare for the barbecue, people were already drinking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 9 Abril 2020
    ...or a party.4 See Zuniga, 551 S.W.3d at 735; Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232; Jenkins, 493 S.W.3d at 599; see also Garcia v. State, 578 S.W.3d 106, 124 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2019, pet. ref'd) (concluding that law of parties was included in hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review and......
  • Burrell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Mayo 2021
    ...Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). 22. Id. 23. See Garcia v. State, 578 S.W.3d 106, 123 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2019, pet. ref'd) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). 24. Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240; see also Curr......
  • Castilleja v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 6 Julio 2022
    ... ... On ... this record, we conclude a hypothetically correct jury charge ... would have applied the law of parties to the facts of the ... case in the application portion. See Ramjattansingh , ... 548 S.W.3d at 546; see also Garcia v. State , 578 ... S.W.3d 106, 124-25 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2019, pet. ref'd) ... (concluding that where State charged defendant with murder ... and tried case under party theory of liability not submitted ... to jury, hypothetically correct charge would have included ... ...
  • Rose v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 1 Febrero 2023
    ... ... the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or ... vitally affects a defensive theory. Stuhler v ... State , 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ... (citing Hutch v. State , 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex ... Crim. App. 1996)); Garcia v. State , 578 S.W.3d 106, ... 129 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2019, pet. ref'd) ... "Egregious harm" is present when the case for ... conviction was actually made clearly and significantly more ... persuasive by the error. See Casanova v. State , 383 ... S.W.3d 530, 533 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT