Green v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-18-00163-CR,NO. 01-18-00162-CR,01-18-00162-CR,01-18-00163-CR |
| Parties | MORRIS PAUL GREEN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 17884 & 17885
Appellant, Morris Paul Green, was found guilty by a jury of the separately-charged offenses of aggravated robbery and evading arrest by using a vehicle.1 The jury found two felony enhancement allegations to be true. In accordance with the habitual offender statute, the jury assessed Appellant's punishment at life in prison for each offense.2 Appellant appeals both judgments of conviction.3 In five issues, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction for each offense, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the defense's closing argument, and the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge.4
We affirm both judgments of conviction.
Felder's Buy-N-Bye is a convenience store in Brenham, Texas. Tootsie's Check Cashing is located within Felder's store. On the morning of November 11, 2016, K. Kroll, an employee of both Felder's and Tootsie's, was working behind the counter as a cashier. Several regular customers were there drinking coffee and visiting as they normally did in the morning. Then, around 10 a.m., three men entered the store. Two of the men were wearing masks, and the third man was wearing sunglasses, a skull cap, gloves, a striped polo shirt, a yellow safety vest, and black sneakers with orange and white soles. One of the masked men pointed a handgun at Kroll as he entered the store. He jumped the counter, shoved Kroll against the wall, and held the gun to her head. He told Kroll that it was a robbery. The other masked man also had a handgun. He pointed it at the customers, some of whom were in their 80s, and told them to get down on the floor. The third man, wearing the yellow safety vest, slid over the counter. He grabbed a cash box from a cabinet under the counter, a brown paper bag, and a cash-register tray from inside a drawer above the cabinet.
The masked man holding Kroll swung her around and ordered her to open the cash register. Kroll complied while at the same time hitting a button activating a silent alarm. The masked man took the tray out of the cash register's drawer, and he pushed Kroll to the floor. The three men quickly left. The entire robbery lasted about 30 seconds. The robbery was captured on a security camera inside the convenience store. While she was still on the floor, Kroll looked out the front through a window crack. She observed the three robbers get into a white four-door car, parked near the store, and then saw the car leave the parking lot.
T. Kurie, a corporal with the Brenham Police Department, was in his patrol car when he heard the report of the robbery over his communications system. He immediately positioned himself in a location where he thought the getaway car would be passing. Within 30 seconds, the white four-door car passed Corporal Kurie's location, and he began to follow it. Because of safety concerns, Corporal Kurie did not initiate a traffic stop of the white car until he was joined by another law enforcement officer, a state trooper, in a separate vehicle. Once the state trooper arrived, Corporal Kurie activated the overhead emergency lights of his marked patrol car. The white car took off at a high rate of speed. Corporal Kurie activated his siren and pursued the white car. Corporal Kurie later testified that "the vehicle continued driving in a reckless manner, passing vehicles on the left, on the right shoulders, multiple times." He confirmed that people in other vehicles on the road were placed in jeopardy. The chase continued from where it began in Washington County into Waller County and ended in Harris County. At least four law enforcement agencies, 12 to 15 police vehicles, and a helicopter were involved in the pursuit. The chase finally ended at a point where the road was under construction. Four men bailed out of the car while it was still in drive. The men began to run across an adjacent field.
Appellant had been in the front, passenger seat. When he jumped out, he was carrying a duffle bag. Appellant ran to a fence bordering the field, threw the bag over it, climbed the fence, and started to run across the field with the bag. Appellant dropped the bag and continued to run a short distance before laying down in the field. He was then taken into custody by police. When he was caught, Appellant was wearing only one shoe. The shoe had an orange and white sole like the shoes worn by the robber at Felder's, who had slid over the counter and taken the cash box. When they opened the duffle bag that Appellant had been carrying, the police found that it contained the cash box, checks, and cash taken from Tootsie's and Felder's during the robbery. The other three occupants of the car were also caught after they ran.
The police obtained a warrant to search the car. In the front passenger side of the car, where Appellant had been sitting, the police recovered a striped polo shirt, a skull cap, gloves, and a yellow safety vest, appearing to be the same as the clothing worn by the robber who had slid over the counter to take the cash box. The police also recovered a handgun from the car and the cash register trays taken during the robbery.
Appellant was separately charged with the offenses of aggravated robbery and evading arrest by use of a vehicle. The two charged offenses were tried together to a jury.
During the guilt-innocence phase, the State offered the testimony of the store clerk, Kroll, and two store customers who were present during the robbery. Six law enforcement officers who were involved in the pursuit and apprehension of the four men in the car, including Corporal Kurie, also testified at trial.
In addition, the State offered the accomplice-witness testimony of Christopher Bazile. He had entered a plea of guilty in exchange for a 25-year prison sentence. Bazile admitted he was one of the robbers. Bazile testified that, during the robbery, he "had jumped over the counter" and "grabbed her [Kroll]" with a gun pointed at her head. Bazile identified a man named "Jevon" as the robber who had ordered the customers on the ground. He stated that Appellant was the man who had jumped the counter and taken the cash box, and he indicated that Appellant had participated in the planning of the robbery. The State also elicited testimony from Bazile that, when the men were fleeing in the white car, Appellant had asked Jevon for a gun so that he could shoot at police.
The State's evidence also included several videos. These included the security video from the store, showing the robbery, and a dash-camera video from one of the police cars, showing the pursuit of the getaway car, the four men jumping out of the car, and the foot pursuit and apprehension of Appellant and his accomplices. The State's exhibits also included still photos from the videos, photos of the contents of the duffle bag and the car, and photos of the clothing that Appellant was wearing when he was caught, including his shoe with its distinctive orange and white sole. In addition, the clothing items recovered from the front passenger side of the car were admitted into evidence.
The charge permitted the jury to find Appellant guilty of both offenses as either the principal actor or as a party. The jury found Appellant guilty of both charged offenses: aggravated robbery and evading arrest with a vehicle. During the punishment phase, the jury determined that Appellant had two prior felony convictions and assessed Appellant's punishment at life in prison for each offense. Appellant now challenges both judgments of conviction, raising five issues.
In his first and third issues, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the two judgments of conviction.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the elements of a criminal offense for which the State has the burden of proof under a single standard of review. Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). This standard of review is the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). See Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Pursuant to the Jackson standard, evidence is insufficient to support a conviction if, considering all the record evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational fact finder could have found that each essential element of the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361 (1970); Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We can hold evidence to be insufficient under the Jackson standard in two circumstances: (1) the record contains no evidence, or merely a "modicum" of evidence, probative of an element of the offense, or (2) the evidence conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314, 318 & n.11, 320; see also Laster, 275 S.W.3d at 518; Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750.
The sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard gives full play to the responsibility of the fact finder to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; see Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). An appellate court presumes that the fact finder resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict and defers to that resolution, provided that the resolution is rational. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
In our review of the record, direct and...
To continue reading
Request your trial