Ashley Judson White v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00216-CR
ASHLEY JUDSON WHITE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-01780-CRF-85
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Ashley White of the offense of obstruction or retaliation. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06 (c) (West). White pleaded true to the enhancement
paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at twenty years confinement. We affirm.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue, White argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of review of a
sufficiency issue as follows:
When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “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. We may not re-weigh
the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams
v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting
a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy
but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d
at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or
evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the
facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at
trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any
conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we
defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts,
the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the
testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative,
and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction
so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809
(Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as
defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v.
State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically
correct jury charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by
the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof
or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately
describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id.; see
also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The “law
White v. State Page 2
as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements of the
offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. Daugherty, 387
S.W.3d at 665.
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
White was an inmate at the Brazos County Jail. Wilhelmina Barrentine works as
a nurse at the Brazos County Jail. Part of her duties as a nurse at the jail includes
dispensing medications to the inmates. Barrentine testified that on October 1, 2019, while
passing out the medications, she observed White attempting to hoard some of his
medication. Barrentine stated that she informed White he would be “written up for
hoarding medication.” Barrentine wrote a report about the incident and informed her
supervisor. White’s physician was also notified about the hoarding incident.
On April 11, 2020, there was a disturbance involving White and other inmates.
White was yelling and cursing at other inmates and threatened to harm the other inmates.
The responding officers attempted to remove White from the housing unit, but he
resisted causing him and two of the officers to fall. White complained that he could not
breathe, so Nurse Barrentine was called to come provide medical assistance.
When White saw Barrentine, he called her a “f - -king b - tch” and said he did not
want anything from her because she “got his medication stopped.” Barrentine tried to
conduct a medical assessment of White, but he refused and began threatening her.
Barrentine testified that White said he knows her name and how to find her. Barrentine
White v. State Page 3
further testified that White told her that when he gets out he will get an “AK-47” and kill
her and her family.
Officer Darryl Plagens, a detention officer at the Brazos County Jail, testified that
White told Nurse Barrentine “You’re the b-tch that made me – got me taken off my meds.
When I get out of jail, I’m going to get an AK-47 and kill you.” Sergeant Michael Matott
also testified that when White saw Nurse Barrentine he threatened to kill her and her
family. Sergeant Matott said that White blamed Nurse Barrentine for him not receiving
his medication.
Section 36.06 of the Texas Penal Code provides that:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly
harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act:
(1) in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another
as a:
(A) public servant, witness, prospective witness, or informant; or
(B) person who has reported or who the actor knows intends to
report the occurrence of a crime;
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06 (a) (West). White contends that the evidence shows that
he was threatening everyone and that his behavior was not directed only to public
servants. White specifically argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that he
threatened Nurse Barrentine because she was a public servant rather than because she
was simply there and happened to be a public servant.
White v. State Page 4
White does not dispute that he threatened to kill Nurse Barrentine, and he does
not dispute that Barrentine was discharging an official duty at the time of the threat. He
argues only that the evidence is insufficient to show that the threat was on account of her
status as a public servant. Nurse Barrentine testified that inmates are not allowed to
hoard medications. Nurse Barrentine reported White for hoarding medication, and his
medication was stopped. Nurse Barrentine believed that White threatened her because
of her reporting him for hoarding medication resulting in his medication being stopped.
Officer Plagens and Sergeant Matott both testified that White’s threat was related to
Nurse Barrentine’s role in having his medications stopped. We find that a rational jury
could find that White threatened Nurse Ballentine on account of actions she took while
performing her duties as a public servant. We overrule the sole issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 19, 2022
Do not publish
[CR25]
White v. State Page 5