Ruffins v. State

Decision Date14 August 2020
Docket NumberNO. 03-18-00540-CR,03-18-00540-CR
Citation613 S.W.3d 192
Parties Anthony RUFFINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
OPINION

Chari L. Kelly, Justice Anthony Ruffins was charged with the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 29.02, .03. The indictment contained enhancement paragraphs alleging that Ruffins had four prior felony convictions. See id. § 12.42. At the end of the guilt-innocence phase, the jury found Ruffins guilty of the charged offense. Ruffins elected to have the trial court assess his punishment, and the trial court found the enhancement allegations to be true and sentenced him to life imprisonment. See id. In eleven issues on appeal, Ruffins asserts that the trial court erred by including multiple errors in the jury charge, failing to grant his motion for new trial, making a deadly weapon finding in its judgment, and imposing more court costs than were authorized. We will reverse the trial court's judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Ruffins was charged with committing aggravated robbery at a tattoo shop in New Braunfels, Texas. The indictment alleged that the following individuals also were involved: codefendant Olanda Taylor, codefendant Robert Ruffins,1 and codefendant Kenneth McMichael. The alleged victim in this case was Sarah Zamora, who worked at the shop with her husband. At the time of the offense, a customer, Tony Hernandez, was in the shop. During the guilt-innocence phase, Zamora and Hernandez both testified. In addition, two law-enforcement officers—Officers Richard Groff and John Mahoney—testified regarding their investigation in this case. Further, codefendant Gustavo Trevino provided testimony regarding the offense, including his role in facilitating the robbery, and David Hogarth testified regarding his knowledge of events leading up to and following the robbery. Audio and visual recordings from surveillance cameras inside the shop were also admitted into evidence.

The surveillance footage showed four African American men wearing masks entering the shop at night while carrying handguns and with several of the men wearing gloves. One man was wearing a white hat. Another man was wearing a dark shirt. The third man was wearing shorts with a red stripe. And the fourth man was wearing shorts with a white stripe. In addition, the footage showed the man in the white hat kick Zamora in the head before pointing a gun at her head and directing her to a cash register and to a safe where the man removed the safe from a cabinet before the man in the dark shirt placed the safe in a bag. The man in the white hat and the other three men are seen repeatedly kicking Hernandez's head and using their pistols to hit his head before dragging him around the floor. The footage shows the man in the dark shirt, the man wearing shorts with a red stripe, and the man wearing shorts with a white stripe leaving the shop and captures one of those men stating that it was time to leave before the man in the white hat is seen walking down the stairs and leaving the shop.

Zamora and Hernandez testified about the events on the night in question and the injuries that they and Zamora's husband sustained, but neither was able to identify Ruffins as one of the offenders. Zamora and Hernandez both testified that the offenders took their cell phones.

After Zamora and Hernandez testified, Officer Groff explained that in his initial investigation of this case, he used the "Find My iPhone" app to locate the two stolen phones and determined that the phones were in the custody of a woman and her son who lived at the Palms Apartments in San Antonio. Officer Groff testified that the woman explained that codefendant Taylor had given her the phones. Officer Groff also stated that the police found a safe in the dumpster of the apartment complex and that the safe was consistent with the one stolen from the tattoo shop.

Next, Officer Mahoney testified that his investigation in this case led him to believe that the following people were involved in the robbery: Ruffins and codefendants Taylor, McMichael, Trevino, and Robert. Further, Officer Mahoney stated that he learned through his investigation that Taylor, Robert, and Ruffins were all related. Next, Officer Mahoney stated that his review of surveillance footage of businesses near the tattoo shop showed a white Volvo driving toward the shop shortly before the robbery, and he learned in his investigation that codefendant Trevino owned a white Volvo.

Additionally, Officer Mahoney testified that he interviewed Taylor after the cell phones had been recovered and after codefendant Taylor had been arrested for a separate offense. Taylor provided information furthering his investigation. During his investigation, he reviewed Taylor's Facebook page to attempt to identify other suspects in the case, and his social media search led him to the Facebook pages for Ruffins and codefendants Robert and McMichael. Officer Mahoney related that he learned from Ruffins's page that Ruffins's nickname was "Poohbear," and when Officer Mahoney listened to the surveillance footage from the tattoo shop, he heard someone say, "Let's go, let's go, Poohbear" before the man in the white hat came down the stairs. Officer Mahoney described how Ruffins referred to codefendant McMichael as his "shooter" in a Facebook post months before the offense in which Ruffins used emojis for knives, guns, money, and money bags. Further, Officer Mahoney explained that his online research of the Facebook pages showed pictures of Ruffins and codefendants Robert and Taylor each wearing a white hat similar to the one in the surveillance footage. Officer Mahoney stated that although the four men in the surveillance footage were wearing masks, the footage captured a unique tattoo on one of the offender's arm, and Officer Mahoney explained that codefendant McMichael had a tattoo on his arm that looked like the one in the surveillance footage.

Moreover, Officer Mahoney testified that he learned from the Palms Apartments' residents that Hogarth was linked with some of the individuals discussed above and that he saw Ruffins talking with Hogarth when he drove to the apartment complex to talk to Hogarth but that Ruffins left before he approached Hogarth. Officer Mahoney stated that he learned that Hogarth had information related to the robbery and he obtained a search warrant for Hogarth's phone. The search of the phone revealed a text thread between Hogarth and codefendant Trevino in which Trevino told Hogarth what to tell the police, and that Trevino told Hogarth to get a lawyer. Further, Officer Mahoney testified that Hogarth initially was uncooperative and lied to the police about whether he knew anything about the offense but later cooperated with the police by providing information about the offense and those involved. Similarly, Officer Mahoney related that Hogarth stated that he was afraid of Ruffins and that Ruffins had threatened to hurt him if he testified. Moreover, Officer Mahoney testified that he believed that Hogarth told Trevino's wife not to cooperate with the police. Officer Mahoney stated that Hogarth told him that he went to the tattoo shop with codefendants Taylor and Trevino days before the offense but that he did not learn that Taylor and Trevino were planning to rob the shop until they were driving home from the shop. When describing Hogarth's involvement in this case, Officer Mahoney testified that there was no evidence that Hogarth encouraged anyone to participate in the robbery or aided or attempted to aid anyone in the commission of the robbery.

Furthermore, Officer Mahoney stated that a search of Ruffins's father's apartment at the Palms Apartments led to the discovery of a gun and a pair of gloves. Additionally, Officer Mahoney recalled that when he showed codefendant Robert's mother a picture of the masked man in the white hat from the surveillance footage of the tattoo shop, she stated that the man was Robert and not Ruffins. Regarding Ruffins's arrest, Officer Mahoney stated that Ruffins did not react when shown the violent footage from the robbery. Further, Officer Mahoney testified that while Ruffins denied any involvement in the case, he also made unusual statements such as "[i]f you say I did it, I did it." Officer Mahoney related that Ruffins stated that he was with his girlfriend, Shante Benton, on the night of the offense but did not provide her contact information. When discussing Benton, Officer Mahoney mentioned that his search of Ruffins's Facebook page indicated that he was romantically involved with Benton, but Officer Mahoney did not attempt to contact Benton as part of his investigation.

In his testimony, Hogarth explained that he lived at the Palms Apartments around the time of the offense and that he associated with Ruffins and codefendants Taylor, Robert, and Trevino. Hogarth stated that Trevino and Taylor decided to rob Trevino's cousin's tattoo shop and that he rode with Trevino and Taylor to the tattoo shop days before the offense occurred. Additionally, Hogarth related that he was present during conversations in which Taylor, Robert, Ruffins, and Trevino made plans to rob the shop and that Ruffins recruited codefendant McMichael to help. Regarding the night of the offense, Hogarth recalled that he saw McMichael, Trevino, Taylor, and Ruffins drive off in a white Volvo. When he was shown a photo from the surveillance footage of the masked man in the white hat, Hogarth testified that the man in the photo was Ruffins and that Ruffins always wore that hat. But Hogarth also admitted on cross-examination that he previously told the police that he would just be guessing when asked the identity of the man in the white hat and that the man in the photo looked like someone other than Ruffins. Relatedly, Hogarth explained that although the men wore masks, he recognized the men...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Ruffins v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...of guilt, which he asserts is another circumstance tending to show that Hogarth was a party to the charged offense. See Ruffins, 613 S.W.3d at 202 n.2 ("This [consciousness-of-guilt] evidence raises an as to whether Hogarth performed an affirmative act promoting the commission of the aggrav......
  • Ruffins v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 10 Noviembre 2023
    ...See Ruffins v. State 613 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App.- Austin 2020). This Court reversed his conviction and remanded for further proceedings. See id. at 204. Following our Ruffins filed a motion asking this Court to set reasonable bail, and this Court granted the motion, set bail at $150,000, and ......

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