Juan Torres Rodriguez v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
13-15-00287-CR
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
11/25/2015 1:03:58 PM
Dorian E. Ramirez
CLERK
No. 13-15-00287-CR
IN THE FILED IN
13th COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
11/25/2015 1:03:58 PM
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
at Corpus Christi Clerk
_______________
JUAN TORRES RODRIGUEZ
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.
_______________
Appealed from Cause Number S-14-3162-CR
In the 36th Judicial District Court of
San Patricio County, Texas
________________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
________________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Welborn
District Attorney
Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Texas Bar No. 18682570
P.O. Box 1393
Sinton, Texas 78387
Tel. (361) 364-9390
Fax (361) 364-9490
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE,
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
IDENTITIES OF THE PARTIES
APPELLANT Juan Torres Rodriguez
Trial Judge Honorable Joel B. Johnson
36th District Court
400 W. Sinton Street
Sinton, Texas 78387
Trial Attorney and Appeal Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Attorney For State State Bar No. 18682570
Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
Sinton, Texas 78387
Trial Attorney/Appellant David Phillips
State Bar No. 15922525
P.O. Box 124
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
Appellant Attorney Irma Mendoza Sanjines
State Bar No. 17635655
P.O. Box 4005
Corpus Christi, Texas 78469
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ii
INDEX OF AUTHORTIES iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S ISSUE 1,2
STATEMENT OF FACTS 2,3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT AND 4
REPLY TO APPELLANT’S FIRST ISSUE
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ISSUE NUMBER ONE 4,5
CONCLUSION/PRAYER 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 6
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Tex.Crim App. 2010) 4
Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Tex.Crim App. 2010) 5
iv
STATEMENT OF CASE
Juan Torres Rodriguez (hereafter Appellant), was charged in a two count
indictment with Possession of a Controlled Substance, to-wit: Cocaine less than one
gram, a state jail felony (Count One), and Tampering with Physical Evidence, a third
degree felony (Count Two). Clerks Record (hereafter CR) p. 6
Appellant pled not guilty and was tried by the jury on December 8, and 9, 2014.
Reports Record, (Hereafter RR) p.3 The jury found Rodriguez guilty on both counts.
(CR pp.44-45) A Pre Sentence Investigation report was ordered and a punishment
hearing was scheduled for February 20, 2015. (CR, p.46)
Appellant failed to appear on February 20, 2015. (CR, p.55) On June 29, 2015, the
trial court conducted a punishment hearing and sentenced Appellant to eighteen months
on Count Ones, and six years on Count Two, to run concurrently. (CR, pp. 81-88) The
trial court certified his right of appeal. (CR, p. 63)
Appellant filed his timely Notice of Appeal, on June 30, 2015. (CR, p.65)
STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S ISSUE
The State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury which heard the
testimony and returned a verdict of guilty to the charge. The jury heard the testimony,
weighed the evidence and returned a guilty verdict. The jury is the sole judge of the
witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. An appellant’s
interpretation of the evidence is not controlling, the jury is the final arbiter of the facts
1
presented.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The state’s first witness was Sinton Police Officer Aaron Putnam. (RR, pp. 32-58)
Officer Putnam first noticed appellant at 11:30 p.m. with a beer bottle in his hand in the
700 block of Ave C, in Sinton TX. (RR, p. 34, lines 16-20) Officer Putnam then
proceeded to the 700 block of Ave. D to see if the appellant was going to go to this
address as he had a criminal trespass warning not to be on the property. (RR, pp. 34-35,
p. 34, lines 23-25 and p. 35 lines 1-3) Officer Putnam observed Appellant enter the
property and made contact with Appellant and attempted to arrest appellant for the
criminal trespass violation. (RR, p. 36, lines 7-16) When Officer Putnam tried to arrest
the Appellant he began to resist. (RR, p. 36 Lines 21-24) Officer Putnam observed a
baggie in Appellant’s hand, asked him what he had and Appellant tried to conceal what
he had in his hand from the officer. (RR, p. 37, lines 18-22) Officer Putnam testified that
after he asked Appellant what he had in his hand he began to resist even more and Officer
Christian Martinez arrived to help him with the arrest of the Appellant. (RR, p. 38, lines
9-17) Officer Putnam testified that he and Officer completed handcuffing Appellant and
that Officer Martinez saw something in Appellant’s hand. (RR, p. 38, lines 23-24) Officer
Putnam testified that Appellant then switched the baggie from his right hand to his left
hand and attempted to grind up what was in his hand by rapidly clinching his left hand.
(RR, p. 39, lines 1-6) Officer Putnam testified that he had to physically pry open the
Appellant’s hand to remove the baggie. (RR, p.42, lines 1-2) The baggie once recovered
from the Appellant’s hand was bagged as evidence and transported to the evidence locker
2
at the police station. (RR, p. 39, lines 16-19)
Officer Christian Martinez was the state’s second witness who testified that he
responded as backup to Officer Putnam and helped secure Appellant. He did offer
testimony that Appellant was concealing the baggie in his hand and that Officer Putnam
had to hit the Appellant’s hand to get him to turn loose of the baggie in his hand. (RR,
p.67, lines 12-18)
Detective Roush, Sinton Police Department, testified next, and stated he retrieved
baggie that was in evidence and transported it to DPS crime lab in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(RR, pp. 75-76)
Natalia Sanchez, Lab Technician with the DPS tesitified that she tested the
substance in the baggie (States Exhibit #1) and it was cocaine. (RR, pp. 79-89)
The State then rested on its case in chief (RR, p.89)
The Appellant called two witnesses to testify, Delphino Bustamante and the
Appellant’s girlfriend Mary E. Reese.
Delphino Bustamante testified that he had on a day previous to the night Appellant
was arrested he had taken the Appellant to deliver some medicine to Mary E. Reese at her
apartment and that the Appellant was arrested by Officer Putnam for trespassing on the
apartment grounds when they arrived.(RR, pp. 92-97)
Mary E. Reese, testified that in her opinion the Sinton Police didn’t like the
Appellant because she was married previously to a Sinton Police officer and that on the
night in question she didn’t see a baggie of cocaine in the Appellant’s hand when he was
arrested.(RR, pp.98-119)
3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Reply to Appellant’s Sole Issue: The State presented sufficient evidence to
support the jury’s finding that Appellant had, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed the
offense of Tampering With Evidence. (CR, pp.35-36)
Argument and Authorities
The standard for reviewing a case for legal sufficiency of evidence to support a
verdict is the Jackson v Virginia standard, which asks whether a jury was rationally
justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is considered in
the light most favorable to the verdict. Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Tex.Crim App.
2010) Appellant’s whole argument is based on his interpretation of the evidence. A
review of the evidence in the record of this case does not support his interpretation.
Appellant argues that he didn’t “know” that an official investigation was in
progress because previous trespassing charges against him had been dismissed or “no
charged”. This conveniently ignores the fact that appellant while being arrested for the
trespass warning from the apartment complex, he was found with a baggie in his hand
that he was concealing. The officers told him why he was being arrested as was testified
to Mary E. Reese, Appellant’s girlfriend (RR, p.103, lines 13-15). During this arrest he
tried to conceal the evidence as per Officer Putnam’s testimony (RR, p. 37, lines 18-22)
and Officer Martinez’s testimony (RR, p.66, lines 15-22).
The next point, was there evidence that the jury could consider that the Appellant
had the intent to impair the availability of the evidence. This was answered by Officer
Putnam’s testimony that the appellant was trying to grind the evidence up in his
4
hand.(RR, p39, lines 1-6) Officer Martinez testified that after repeatedly telling Appellant
to open his hand it was necessary to hit the Appellant’s hand to retrieve the
evidence.(RR, p.67, lines 7-18)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict under a legal-
sufficiency standard means that the reviewing court is required to defer to the jury's
credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses'
credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. Brooks v State, 323 S.W.3d 383
(Tex.Crim App. 2010.) The Appellant wishes for this court to believe his interpretation of
the evidence when the jury did not. The State presented ample evidence for the jury to
find the elements of the charge submitted to jury on Tampering With Evidence. (CR,
pp.35-36)
PRAYER
The Appellant has presented no grounds in his appeal which justify the relief
sought. Accordingly, Appellee respectfully prays that this Honorable Court affirm the
judgment of the trial court in all respects.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Welborn
District Attorney
/s/ Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
5
State Bar No. 18682570
P.O. Box 1393
Sinton, Texas 78387
Tel. (361) 364-9390
Fax (361) 364-9490
samuel.smith@co.san-patricio.tx.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of November, 2015, a true and correct copy of
the above and foregoing instrument was faxed to Irma M. Sanjines, Attorney for
Appellant, P.O. Box 18993, Corpus Christi, Texas 78480 and 361-883-9650.
/s/ Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I certify that the
number of words in this brief, excluding those matters listed in Rule 9.4(i)(1), is 1624.
/s/ Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Samuel B. Smith, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
6