Ricardo Pedraza v. State ( 2014 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00238-CR
Ricardo PEDRAZA,
Appellant
v.
The
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CRR107-D1
Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 31, 2014
AFFIRMED
Ricardo Pedraza was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. On appeal,
Pedraza raises two issues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; and (2) the
evidence is insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2010, Manual Robinson and his wife, Josielyn Herrera, stopped by
Robinson’s mother’s house. While Robinson ran inside, Herrera waited in the truck that was still
running. Shortly after Robinson went inside the house, a man, later identified as Pedraza, entered
04-13-00238-CR
the truck, pointed a gun at Herrera, and demanded all of her money, jewelry, and credit cards.
Pedraza told Herrera not to look at his face, so she did not. When Pedraza saw her debit card, he
drove away with her in the truck to the nearest ATM so she could withdraw money from her
account. Herrera withdrew two hundred dollars and handed it to Pedraza. After driving a little
further, Pedraza abandoned the truck and fled into a nearby drainage creek.
Several hours later, Pedraza was arrested after the vehicle he was riding in was stopped for
a routine traffic violation. The officer recognized Pedraza as a suspect in the robbery from earlier
that evening. After securing Pedraza, the officer found a little over two hundred dollars in his front
pocket and a ring that was later identified as Herrera’s in the cup holder of the vehicle. Pedraza
was indicted for one count of aggravated robbery to which he pled not guilty. A jury found him
guilty and assessed punishment of confinement for forty-five years with a fine in the amount of
$10,000. Pedraza appeals.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. Standard of Review
“Evidence is legally sufficient when, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, a
rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The jury is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, the credibility of the
witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.04
(West 2013); Dorsey v. State; 24 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d). The
jury has “exclusive providence” to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and “believe or disbelieve all
or any part of a witness’s testimony, even though the witness’s testimony has been contradicted.”
Dorsey, 24 S.W.3d at 924.
-2-
04-13-00238-CR
B. Discussion
In order to obtain a conviction for aggravated robbery, the State was required to prove that
(1) Pedraza unlawfully appropriated Herrera’s property with the intent to deprive her of it; (2)
Pedraza intended to obtain or maintain control of the property; (3) Pedraza intentionally or
knowingly threatened or placed Herrera in fear of imminent bodily injury or death; and (4) Pedraza
used or exhibited a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.02, 29.03, 31.03 (West
2013). Pedraza’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence focuses only on the issue of identity.
At trial, Jose Luis Tijeros testified that he had a confrontation with Pedraza shortly before
the robbery occurred and that he watched Pedraza get into Robinson’s truck and drive away.
Tijeros identified Pedraza in a photographic lineup the next day, but Tijeros could not identify
Pedraza in court. Tijeros’s failure to make an in-court identification, however, is merely a factor
for the jury to consider in assessing the weight and credibility of Tijeros’s testimony. See Sharp
v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Accordingly, Tijeros’s prior identification
of Pedraza as the perpetrator of the offense is sufficient to support Pedraza’s conviction because a
conviction may be based on the testimony of only one eyewitness. See Aguilar v. State, 468
S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).
In addition to Tijeros’s testimony, the State also presented fingerprint evidence establishing
that Pedraza had been present in the truck. Although other testimony revealed the possibility that
the fingerprint evidence was left in the truck earlier in the day, the possibility that Pedraza’s
fingerprint may have been “left at a time other than the time of the burglary does not necessarily
render the evidence insufficient.” Phelps v. State, 594 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
Finally, the State presented evidence that when Pedraza was arrested several hours later,
he was in possession of a ring that was later identified as belonging to Herrera and two hundred
dollars, which was the amount that Herrera had withdrawn from her account. Herrera’s testimony
-3-
04-13-00238-CR
about the ring was somewhat contradictory in that she could not remember whether the ring was
pawned before or after the incident. After much equivocating, Herrera eventually testified the ring
was pawned before the incident. It was within the jury’s province to assess Herrera’s credibility
and demeanor as she testified and to resolve any conflicts in her testimony. See Merritt v. State,
368 S.W.3d 516, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Dorsey, 24 S.W.3d at 924. Even if the jury
discounted the evidence regarding the ring, it could have believed Pedraza was the perpetrator
because he was in possession of the same amount of cash that Herrera had withdrawn from her
account.
CONCLUSION
Having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could
have found Pedraza guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, the evidence is
sufficient to support Pedraza’s conviction. See Williams, 937 S.W.2d at 482. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
Karen Angelini, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-