Curtis Goss v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County (Majority)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2012 » Curtis Goss v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County (Majority)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-11-00223-CR

Case Date: 10/25/2012

Plaintiff: Curtis Goss

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County (Majority)

Preview:IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11-00223-CR CURTIS GOSS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 35302CR MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant Curtis Goss guilty of the state jail felony offense of theft of wire and assessed his punishment, enhanced by previous felony convictions, at twelve years' confinement. This appeal ensued. In his sole issue, Goss contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We will affirm. The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of review of a sufficiency issue as follows: In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This "familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly 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. "Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2712 (2012). The Court of Criminal Appeals has also explained that our review of "all of the evidence" includes evidence that was properly and improperly admitted. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). And if the record supports conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. 307 at 326. Further, direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: "Circumstantial

evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Finally, it is well established that the factfinder is entitled to judge the credibility of witnesses and can choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A person commits a theft offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

Download 10-11-00223-cr.pdf