Ricky D. Hawkins v. State ( 2003 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-03-00128-CR Ricky D. HAWKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 230th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 931752 Honorable Belinda Hill, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2003

AFFIRMED

A jury found Ricky D. Hawkins ("Hawkins") guilty of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at five years confinement. In two issues, Hawkins challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. We overrule his assertions on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

On July 20, 2002, seventy-one-year-old Joyce Fairchild ("Fairchild") was walking to the grocery store after getting off a bus a few blocks away. Hawkins, who was the only other passenger on the bus with Fairchild, also exited at the same location and followed Fairchild. Before reaching the grocery store, Fairchild heard a loud noise behind her. Startled, she turned around and saw Hawkins running towards her with his hands raised above his head. When he was within a few feet of Fairchild, Hawkins lunged out at her, causing her to fall backwards onto the pavement. Hawkins then reached into Fairchild's purse and took her bank card, driver's license, bus pass, and cash.

Louis Black ("Black") was working outside when he heard Fairchild screaming for help and witnessed Hawkins fleeing from the scene. Black, along with his co-workers, pursued Hawkins in his vehicle and eventually apprehended him. Later, Officer G.E. Michon ("Michon") arrived and arrested Hawkins and returned with him to the scene so that Fairchild could make an identification of her assailant. Fairchild positively identified Hawkins and described what was stolen. At the time of his arrest, Hawkins was in possession of Fairchild's money and her other possessions were found in close proximity to where he was apprehended.  

Analysis

Hawkins contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish that he placed Fairchild in fear of imminent bodily injury or death as required by the Texas Penal Code. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02, 29.03(b) (Vernon 2003). Under section 29.02, a robbery is committed if, in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 2003). Under section 29.03, if the person commits the offense against a person 65 years of age or older, the offense is aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (b).
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). When conducting a factual sufficiency review, we examine all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine if the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the verdict or is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
At trial, the State produced evidence that showed Hawkins had been identified as the person who had robbed Fairchild. The State also offered the testimony of Fairchild who stated that she was seventy-one on the day in question and that she was "scared to death" when Hawkins lunged out at her with his hands in the air. She further testified that when she fell, the pain was so excruciating that she initially thought she was having a heart attack. She received numerous abrasions as a result of the fall. Additionally, on cross-examination, Hawkins admitted that lunging at a person with his hands raised in the air would be considered threatening to an elderly person.

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we believe a rational jury could have found that Hawkins placed Fairchild in imminent fear of bodily injury. The jury evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, including the inconsistent testimony of Hawkins in combination with his admission that he had been previously convicted of similar crimes. In making their determination, the jury concluded that Hawkins had committed the essential elements required for aggravated robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Hawkins' claim that the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery is also without merit. In reviewing all of the evidence, we cannot say that the evidence of guilt is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2    d     126,     135     (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Conclusion

Accordingly, we overrule Hawkins' two issues on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Do Not Publish