Villa v. State, NO. PD-0541-16
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Keller, P.J. |
| Citation | 514 S.W.3d 227 |
| Parties | Jaime VILLA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas |
| Decision Date | 22 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. PD-0541-16 |
514 S.W.3d 227
Jaime VILLA, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas
NO. PD-0541-16
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Delivered: March 22, 2017
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Justin B. Underwood, 303 Texas Ave. Suite 600, El Paso, TX 79901.
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE: Tom A. Darnold, Assistant District Attorney, 203 El Paso Cnty Courthouse, 500 E. San Antonio, El Paso, TX 79901.
Keller, P.J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.
Appellant participated with gang members in a gang-related assault. The complainant testified that he was assaulted by gang members and that appellant was one of the people who assaulted him. The court of appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to show that appellant was himself a member of the gang. We hold that the court of appeals failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and that it therefore erred in holding the evidence to be insufficient.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Trial
Ruben Bejaran, a former member of the Barrio Azteca gang, gave an interview with National Geographic as part of its "Lockdown" series on street gangs. Whether it was the result of this interview or for some other reason,1 Bejaran aroused the ire of the gang leadership—earning himself a "green light" or a "hit," meaning that gang members who saw him would do what they could to hurt him, including killing him on sight. Bejaran was later assaulted by a group of people while attending a party. Appellant participated in this assault and was charged with engaging in organized criminal activity as a member of a street gang.2
Bejaran testified at trial about his ordeal. While he was at the party, he recognized a Barrio Azteca gang member known as "2Short." Upon seeing 2Short, Bejaran left, but he later returned. When he came back, the hostess told Bejaran that he needed to leave. As he turned to leave, Bejaran ran into another gang member known as "Giant," and the two began to fight. Bejaran testified to what happened next:
Q. What happens next?
A. And then we're pushing the fight towards the middle of the street, right there by the driveway, and other gang members start coming towards me, at least like six at that time, at that moment.
Q. Do you recognize anybody?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you recognize?
A. I recognized Hawaiiano. I recognized Felix. I recognized Tiny. I recognized Sleepy. I recognized 2Short and, of course, Giant.
Bejaran later testified that "Sleepy" was appellant's nickname. Testimony from another witness showed that Felix was appellant's brother, and other testimony showed that there were two individuals known as "Tiny" who participated in the fight, one of whom was from Chaparral and was appellant's brother or stepbrother. Bejaran stated that "a lot more Azteca members" joined the fight, but he "didn't recognize all of them." Several of the gang members stabbed Bejaran with knives, while Hawaiiano and appellant stomped on him.
After this description of the attack, the State began questioning Bejaran about each of the identified individuals, one by one, beginning with an identification of the individual in a photo array. During the individual questioning about 2Short, Hawaiiano, Giant, Tiny, and Felix, the State
asked Bejaran if each was a Barrio Azteca gang member and Bejaran responded affirmatively. The State also asked Bejaran about Tiny from Chaparral, and Bejaran explained that it was Tiny who first introduced him to appellant:
Q. Okay. And how do you know Tiny from Chaparral?
A. I've known him from the jail Annex.
Q. Okay. And did you work together?
A. And we worked together. I ended up running into him at a job site at some apartments, and he's the one who introduced me to Sleepy, and he's the one who introduced me to Felix'[s] brothers.
Q. And were they introduced to you just as, "these are my brothers," or were they introduced to you as gang members?
A. As prospects.
Q. Okay. So not quite gang members but prospects?
A. Yes.
Later, Bejaran testified more about the fight:
Like when I swung [at Giant], I barely, like missed, but, like, I grazed him, and he went back. And I was going to try to hit him again, and that's when I saw like five of them, the ones that I had mentioned, the ones that I had punched. I saw them right there, and then when I started fighting them from the driveway, fighting them all towards the street—I didn't know what my brother was doing. I was too involved in these guys. And the next thing I know, I'm surrounded by like 18, 20 of them.
Andres Sanchez, a detective with the gang unit of the El Paso Police Department, testified that the gang unit administers a database of gang members based on criteria in the Code of Criminal Procedure.3 One criterion alone was sufficient to classify a person as a gang member if that criterion was either an in-court self-admission of gang membership or a judgment of conviction for a gang-related crime.4 Otherwise, two criteria were required,5 or in one situation, three criteria.6 Some of these criteria included a self-admission of gang membership outside of court, associating with known criminal street gang members, being arrested with known gang members for a crime that is consistent with gang activity, or using specific letters, words, marks, or colors associated with the gang.7
Detective Sanchez testified that several of the people involved in the assault met at least two of the criteria in the two-criteria situation. For example, regarding Felix, Detective Sanchez testified as follows:
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. [Felix] Villa is a gang member?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your opinion?
A. It would be Barrio Azteca.
Q. And how did you reach that opinion?
A. It would be through the two criteria that he has met, and it was in reference to this case. It was evidence of arrest and evidence of association.
Regarding Tiny from Chaparral, Detective Sanchez similarly testified:
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Vasquez [Tiny from Chaparral] is a Barrio Azteca gang member.
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And how did you reach that conclusion, sir?
A. Again, through the set of criteria that he has met.
When asked to detail how he met that criteria, Detective Sanchez pointed to association, arrests, and a self-admission.
Detective Sanchez likewise testified that appellant met the two-criteria situation, because he associated with known gang members and was arrested with gang members for a crime consistent with gang activity:
Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether the defendant is a Barrio Azteca gang member?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how did you reach that opinion?
A. Again, he's met the two criteria, as mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure[ ]. He has evidence of arrest and evidence of association in reference to this case.8
Detective Sanchez acknowledged that "both criteria come from just this case" but testified that such a situation was "not unusual." When questioned about a tattoo that appellant had of Aztec culture, the detective answered that such a tattoo does not, standing by itself, make someone a member of the Barrio Azteca gang, and he did not consider it in his assessment of appellant's gang status. When asked whether familial relationship with a gang member was a factor in assessing whether a person was a gang member, Detective Sanchez said that the jail and prison authorities relied upon that as a factor but that was not a factor relied upon by the gang unit for inclusion in the database.
Detective Sanchez also testified that if one member of the Barrio Azteca gang starts a fight with someone that the gang has green-lighted, other gang members who are present would have to join in or risk being expelled from the gang and assaulted or killed.
A jury convicted appellant of engaging in organized criminal activity and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and a fine of $2,000.9
B. Appeal
On appeal, appellant claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that he was a member of the Barrio Azteca gang, and therefore, was insufficient to show that he intended to participate in the assault...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bolles, NO. PD-0791-16
...to support a conviction is measured based on a hypothetically correct jury charge).11 Bolles , 512 S.W.3d at 467.12 See Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (first citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; and then citing L......
-
Rodriguez v. State, No. 08-16-00118-CR
...disagreed with our statutory interpretation, noting that we did not have the benefit of its more recent holding in Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex.Crim.App. 2017), when we issued our opinion. Zuniga, 2018 WL 2711145, at *4. Although the Court in Villa did not expressly resolve the ......
-
Ruiz v. State, 11-18-00267-CR
...). Therefore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ; Murray v. State , 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Each fact need not point directly and independe......
-
Ruiz v. State, 11-18-00267-CR
...13). Therefore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Each fact need not point directly and independen......
-
State v. Bolles, NO. PD-0791-16
...to support a conviction is measured based on a hypothetically correct jury charge).11 Bolles , 512 S.W.3d at 467.12 See Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (first citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; and then citing L......
-
Rodriguez v. State, No. 08-16-00118-CR
...disagreed with our statutory interpretation, noting that we did not have the benefit of its more recent holding in Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex.Crim.App. 2017), when we issued our opinion. Zuniga, 2018 WL 2711145, at *4. Although the Court in Villa did not expressly resolve the ......
-
Ruiz v. State, 11-18-00267-CR
...). Therefore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ; Murray v. State , 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Each fact need not point directly and independe......
-
Ruiz v. State, 11-18-00267-CR
...13). Therefore, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Each fact need not point directly and independen......