Ruffins v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | PD-0862-20 |
| Parties | ANTHONY RUFFINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS COMAL COUNTY
OPINION
Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. With respect to the testimony of an accomplice in fact, the trial court instructed the jury that it must find an accomplice in fact to be an accomplice beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals determined that the reasonable doubt portion of the accomplice-witness application paragraph in the jury charge was erroneous, and that Appellant suffered egregious harm from the error. We exercised our discretionary authority to review this decision, and now reverse.
On May 10, 2016, four men entered Timeless Ink, a two-story tattoo and piercing shop in New Braunfels. The plan to commit a robbery originated with Gustavo Trevino[1]("Trevino") and Olanda Taylor ("Taylor"). Taylor's cousin owned Timeless Ink. With Trevino and Taylor, Appellant, Kenneth McMichael ("McMichael"), and Robert Ruffins (Appellant's relative, hereinafter, "Robert"), agreed to participate in the robbery.
On the day of the robbery, Trevino drove Appellant, Taylor, and McMichael from the Palms Apartments ("the Palms") in San Antonio to New Braunfels in Trevino's white Volvo. On the way to Timeless Ink, the group picked up Robert stopped at Wal-Mart to get zip ties, and then parked in a lot nearby the tattoo parlor. Inside the Volvo, the group put on masks, gloves, and hats to conceal their identities. Trevino stayed in the car as Appellant, Taylor, McMichael, and Robert entered Timeless Ink. The eight surveillance cameras installed throughout the two-story building captured what occurred next.
Inside the shop, Sarah Zamora and her husband Anthony can be seen working a late-night shift upstairs. Anthony was working on a tattoo for one of their regular customers, Tony Hernandez when Sarah heard someone enter the shop downstairs. When Sarah got to the top of the stairs to greet them, she saw Taylor standing on the steps pointing a gun in her direction. Sarah ran back into the room where Anthony was working on Tony's tattoo and said, "Anthony, gun." Taylor, Robert, and Appellant came upstairs and entered the room and told Sarah, Anthony, and Tony to put their hands up and get on the ground.
Anthony told Taylor to take whatever they wanted, but Taylor hit Anthony and knocked him to the ground, knocking him unconscious. Appellant stomped on Anthony's head. Then all four men repeatedly kicked Tony's head and hit his head with pistols before dragging him around the floor.
Appellant then kicked Sarah in the face, forced her downstairs by her hair, and commanded her to open the cash register. It was empty. Appellant then removed the shop's safe that was located next to the cash register, placed it in a bag, and took it. Appellant again grabbed Sarah by the hair, walked her halfway up the stairs, pointed the gun at her, and told her not to look at them or move until they left or they would kill her. Anthony, Sarah, and Tony's wallets and cell phones were taken in the robbery.
Detective Richard Groff with New Braunfels Police Department ("NBPD") observed the four suspects on the Timeless Ink surveillance video. The surveillance footage showed four black men wearing masks and gloves and carrying handguns. One man, later identified as Appellant, was wearing a white hat, another was wearing a dark shirt, the third individual was wearing shorts with a red stripe, and the fourth was wearing shorts with a white stripe. The footage also captured a unique tattoo on one of the suspect's arms which was identified at trial as belonging to McMichael.
Detective Groff tracked Tony and Sarah's stolen phones using the Find My iPhone application and learned the phones were located in San Antonio at the Palms Apartments.[2]Detective Groff sent a message through the app asking for whoever found the phones to call him. Shortly thereafter, a woman named Rosa Garcia called Detective Groff and he went to the Palms to meet her. Rosa and her son had Sarah and Anthony's cell phones. Rosa told the detective she received the phones from "Tazz Ruffins." Rosa showed Detective Groff "Tazz's" Facebook page.
NBPD Detective John Mahoney used the Facebook profile Detective Groff obtained for "Tazz," and identified "Tazz" as Olanda Taylor.[3] Detective Mahoney learned Taylor lived at the Palms. While speaking with sources at the Palms, Mahoney learned that an individual named David Hogarth was acquainted with some of the suspects. When Detective Mahoney went to the Palms to try to talk with Hogarth in person, he observed Hogarth standing with Appellant. Appellant quickly walked away and Detective Mahoney asked Hogarth to come with him to the San Antonio police station. Hogarth was reluctant, but he agreed to go and ultimately assisted in identifying the robbers based on the surveillance video screenshots.
Hogarth also told Mahoney that he, Trevino, and Taylor had gone to New Braunfels prior to the robbery and that Trevino and Taylor had discussed the robbery during the trip. Hogarth admitted that he was present during conversations in which Taylor, Robert, Appellant, and Trevino made plans to commit a robbery and that Appellant recruited McMichael to help. On the night of the offense, Hogarth saw McMichael, Trevino, Taylor, and Appellant drive off in a white Volvo. When Hogarth was shown a photo from the surveillance footage of the masked man in the white hat, Hogarth stated that he knew the man in the photo was Appellant because Appellant always wore that particular hat. When Hogarth was interviewed by police, he informed Detective Mahoney that Trevino had been telling Hogarth what to say to police. When Trevino was interviewed by police, he provided an alibi that Mahoney's investigation revealed to be false. Mahoney obtained a search warrant for Hogarth's phone that revealed text messages that confirmed Hogarth's account.
Detective Mahoney obtained surveillance footage from other businesses near Timeless Ink and observed a white, box-shaped vehicle with a distinctive side blinker traveling in the vicinity shortly before the robbery. Trevino's white Volvo matched the description of the vehicle Mahoney observed in the footage.
Detective Mahoney later interviewed Taylor regarding the Timeless Ink robbery. Taylor provided information to assist in the investigation, including identifying information for the other suspects. Detective Mahoney obtained arrest warrants for the remaining suspects, including Appellant, who denied involvement in the Timeless Ink robbery and claimed he had an alibi. However, Appellant also made comments such as and refused to provide any information that would enable the detectives to follow up on his alibi information. A search of Appellant's father's apartment at the Palms led to the discovery of a gun and a pair of gloves.
Co-defendant Trevino testified at Appellant's trial in exchange for the State's abstention from recommending punishment in his case. Trevino told the jury that he decided to commit robbery at his cousin's shop because he needed money. He testified that, before the robbery, he drove by the tattoo shop with Hogarth and co-defendant Taylor; that he discussed the possibility of the robbery; that Hogarth was not part of the plan; that Hogarth had merely overheard the conversation concerning the robbery between Trevino and Taylor; that Hogarth did not help anyone commit the robbery; and that he told Hogarth to get a lawyer and not talk to the police after the robbery. Trevino testified that he drove to the tattoo shop in his white Volvo with Appellant and codefendants Taylor, McMichael, and Robert. He further testified that the four passengers put on masks and gloves and had their guns ready. He confirmed that Appellant was wearing a white hat.
At trial, Appellant called an ex-girlfriend to testify that she had been dating Appellant for several years and that he was with her on the night of the robbery. She admitted, however, that Appellant had asked her to provide an alibi at trial. She never provided the alibi information to investigative authorities, despite the fact she knew he had been in custody for two years awaiting trial.
At the final charge conference, the trial court asked if the parties had any objections to the jury charge. Appellant's counsel asserted:
To continue reading
Request your trial