Pete Gonzales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2001 » Pete Gonzales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-99-00346-CR

Case Date: 08/29/2001

Plaintiff: Pete Gonzales

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

Preview:Pete Gonzales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County
Pete Gonzales v. State of Texas /**/ IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-346-CR

PETE GONZALES, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court # 99-259-C OPINION A jury convicted Pete Gonzales of aggravated robbery, enhanced by three prior felony convictions, and sentenced him to forty years confinement. He claims in two issues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a jury finding that: 1) he intended to obtain and maintain control over property, and 2) he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. Standard of Review In reviewing a claim of legal insufficiency, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. See Lacour v. State, 8 S.W.3d 670, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). We resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict. See Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A person commits the offense of robbery when in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he: (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1994). Robbery is aggravated if the

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4452.html[8/20/2013 7:15:14 PM]

person commits robbery as defined in section 29.02 and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 1994). Because Gonzales argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support two elements of his conviction, we will review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict. The Evidence The State presented evidence through the testimony of seven witnesses. The victim, Jeff Hughes, testified that he was leaving his apartment in Waco, Texas when he passed a Hispanic man and a black man. Hughes testified that just as he reached his truck, the same Hispanic man grabbed him around the neck and held a sharp object to his throat. Hughes identified Gonzales as the assailant by his facial features as well as the distinctive Dallas Cowboys football team jacket worn by Gonzales at the time of the offense. Hughes testified that Gonzales demanded his wallet. When Hughes stated that his wallet was in the apartment, Gonzales demanded that he open the truck. Hughes testified that he did not see the knife as it was up to his throat but it cut his throat enough to draw blood. Hughes testified that Gonzales released him when the police arrived. Officer Contreras was called to the scene in order to investigate a suspicious person. When he arrived, Contreras witnessed Gonzales holding Hughes around the neck and saw that Gonzales had a weapon in his hand. Contreras testified that, although he did not see the exact weapon in Gonzales s hand, he did see him holding a shiny object that he knew to be a weapon. Contreras identified Gonzales as the assailant he had witnessed holding a weapon to Hughes s throat. Contreras also identified the car in which Gonzales and another Hispanic male fled the scene. Officers Donaho, Garcia, and Nix responded to the scene and located the suspects car. Before they could stop the car, the officers witnessed one of the vehicle s occupants exit the vehicle and run into a wooded area. Nix identified Gonzales as the man who exited the car. He testified that he saw Gonzales face and the white and blue jacket. After a brief pursuit on foot, Officers Nix and Donaho located Gonzales under a cluster of bushes in a nearby apartment complex. Both identified Gonzales at trial. Officer Garcia, Contreras partner on the night in question, witnessed the fleeing suspect s clothing and identified the suspect as wearing a white and blue Dallas Cowboys jacket. He identified the knife found in the car and testified that it had fresh blood on it. Garcia stated that the knife was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Conclusion When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence is more than adequate to support a jury finding on each element of the offense questioned here. Therefore, issues one and two are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REX D. DAVIS Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Vance, and Justice Gray Affirmed

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4452.html[8/20/2013 7:15:14 PM]

Opinion delivered and filed August 29, 2001 Do not publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/4452.html[8/20/2013 7:15:14 PM]

Download 4452.pdf