Romero v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 13-20-00103-CR |
| Parties | JOSE REYES ROMERO JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
Appellant Jose Reyes Romero Jr. appeals his convictions of evading arrest with a vehicle, a third-degree felony, and manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance (methamphetamine), greater than one gram but less than four grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (c); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). By a single issue, Romero argues the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain either conviction. We affirm.
Romero was arrested on charges of evading arrest and manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance on February 26, 2019. He was indicted on both counts and pleaded not guilty. The case proceeded to trial, where Romero disputed that he operated the vehicle or was in possession of any narcotics or contraband found in the vehicle.
Ryan Kelly, an officer with the Victoria Police Department (VPD), testified he was on patrol at approximately 4:53 a.m. on February 26, 2019, when he observed a blue Chevrolet Trailblazer being driven without headlights on. Kelly performed a U-turn and activated his emergency vehicle lights. The driver of the blue Chevrolet, however, did not stop. For three minutes, the driver disregarded "numerous stop signs [and] red lights" before coming to a stop in a residential neighborhood in the "back of someone's driveway in between two houses." Kelly immediately approached the vehicle and noted that the driver's side door was inoperable because it was pressed against the side of a house.1 Kelly testified he ran to the passenger side of the vehicle and found the front passenger door was wide open. A man later identified as Romero was lying on the ground several feet away. " Kelly placed Romero under arrest. Kelly testified the immediate area was "fenced in," and he did not see anyone else.
Kelly searched the vehicle and found an open alcoholic beverage in the center console and a "black shaving kit" on the front passenger seat. The kit contained "numerous baggies" of methamphetamine2 and a wallet with two identification cards: Romero's3 and an unknown female, Lucia Rubio Mendiola. Kelly also retrieved a scale from the front passenger seat, which he testified was indicative of "sales and distribution of narcotics."
On cross-examination, Kelly was asked whether it was possible that Romero had been seated outside on a nearby stairwell and had fallen on the ground when the vehicle collided nearby, as Romero claimed. Kelly responded,
VPD Officer Christopher Yogi testified he responded to Kelly's calls for assistance during Kelly's active pursuit of Romero's vehicle. Yogi testified Romero and Kelly passed him going in the opposite direction on a two-way residential street, but pursuant to VPD protocol, Yogi did not attempt to block Romero's vehicle with his own.
I looked into the vehicle. I saw the subject in the vehicle. All I could see at that time appeared to be—was a Hispanic male, fairly that was . . . slim build; and then he was wearing kind of like the tank tops but with the—I don't know—with the shorter sleeves or the thinner shoulder strap.
Yogi identified Romero as the driver of the vehicle. Yogi was the second officer at the scene, and he helped Kelly search the vehicle. Yogi also noted that Romero's vehicle appeared to have been "hot[-]wired."
VPD Officer John Ortiz testified he arrived after Romero had been restrained by Kelly and Yogi. Ortiz said he was tasked with searching around the area "for any signs of any other people." Ortiz testified he did not see anyone.
Jail call recordings were also admitted into evidence. In one call, Romero can be heard telling his girlfriend, Crystal Trevino:
When I left I was just tripping, man . . . I just took off, and my lights were off. I didn't realize and the cop got behind me, and I was, like, man, f-ck this fool. I ain't gonna let them in my car no more. I just kept driving straight, man, and I just drove to the house and parked my car so they don't take it.
Romero claimed he wanted the confiscated narcotics reweighed because he knew he had "less than an eight ball." Romero also reminded Trevino that his vehicle needed to be hot-wired to start.
Trevino testified that she was unsure of whether, during a jail call, Romero admitted to her that he had been driving the night he was arrested. Trevino said she was primarily concerned with retrieving some of Romero's belongings during her conversation with Romero. Trevino testified that when she later went to the jail to pick up Romero's belongings, she was given two different wallets. One wallet contained an identification card and Visa card for Thomas Vladimer Simon, a name she did not recognize. Another wallet contained identification cards for Romero and Mendiola, who she stated is Romero's mother.
Romero testified that he was thirty-nine years old, born in Houston but raised "mostly in Dallas," and grew up in foster care from the age of four years old until he "aged out." Romero said he was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in 2001. After he was released from prison, he was arrested and convicted of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.5 Romero said he was placed on probation but later arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI), third or more. His community supervision was revoked in his firearm possession case, and he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on August 27, 2014; Romero was also convicted in the DWI case and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Romero said he "paroled out" on July 7, 2018—seven months before his evading arrest.
According to Romero, he moved to Port Lavaca after he became reacquainted with his biological mother, Mendiola, and "found out [he] had eight sisters and a brother." When asked "[w]ho was in the car that was being followed by the police" that evening, Romero said it had been Mendiola "and some guy friend she was with." Romero maintained he had arrived at the residence6 to find Mendiola and her friend drinking; they asked to borrow his car, and he loaned it to them. Romero testified that he went to sleep and was later awoken by a phone call from Mendiola. She claimed the police were trying to pull them over, and Romero said he instructed Mendiola to stop, but she refused because she had drugs in the vehicle. "And I asked her what she had on her, and she said somethingabout under eight—she said, have an eight ball.[']" Romero suggested that the methamphetamine found in the vehicle might have belonged to her friend.
Romero said he ran outside and witnessed the car come to a rolling stop; Mendiola and her friend jumped out of the vehicle and ran into the residence. Romero testified he "didn't want to tell on [his] mom," so he told officers he had seen two people run in an opposite direction.
Romero denied being intoxicated that evening and stated, Romero testified that the black bag retrieved by police was not a shaving kit, but rather, it was a makeup bag that belonged to Mendiola—as did the wallet found inside of it. Romero said Mendiola kept his old identification card with her because she had become sentimental after they reunited.
When confronted with the jail call recordings during cross-examination, Romero stated that he knew he was being recorded and only assumed responsibility to "protect [his] mother." When asked why he would specifically tell Trevino that if he was released, he would not drink, do or sell drugs anymore, Romero again reiterated that everything he said on the recordings was to protect his mother.
The jury returned a guilty verdict. Following a hearing on punishment, the jury found two prior enhancement paragraphs true and assessed punishment at sixty years' imprisonment for each count to run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d). This appeal followed.
By his sole issue, Romero argues the evidence was legally insufficient to support either conviction.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
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). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244, 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). "Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of a defendant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Walker v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial