Ronald James Bryant v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00307-CR
RONALD JAMES BRYANT,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 82nd District Court
Falls County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10310
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronald James Bryan was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life in
prison. TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a)(2). Because the evidence was sufficient to show the
BB gun used in the offense was a deadly weapon, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
A man, later identified as Bryant, entered a bank in Marlin, Texas, carrying a big
bag and wearing an orange hoodie with the hood up over his head, a wig, a cap, and
sunglasses. He proceeded to the only teller in the bank that day, took out what looked to
be a handgun, pointed it at the teller’s chest, and demanded money in $50’s and $100’s.
He specifically did not want money with dye packs. The teller grabbed money, avoiding
the dye packs, and put it in Bryant’s bag. When she finished, Bryant demanded that the
teller open the next teller’s money drawer. When she told him she could not because she
was the only teller, Bryant looked in the bag and walked out of the bank. Four to five
hours later, Bryant was arrested in another town. A wig and cap were located at his
stepdaughter’s apartment, and money and a realistic looking BB gun/handgun were
found in the car of Bryant’s wife. Bryant had been driving the car around the time of the
robbery. More money was found in Bryant’s house.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In one issue, Bryant contends the evidence was insufficient because the State failed
to show that the BB gun was a deadly weapon.
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
Bryant v. State Page 2
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
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).
Deadly Weapon
An actor commits an aggravated robbery if he commits a robbery under Section
29.02 of the Penal Code while he "uses or exhibits a deadly weapon." TEX. PENAL CODE §
29.03(a)(2). A "deadly weapon" is defined by the Penal Code as "(A) a firearm or anything
manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious
bodily injury; or (B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of
causing death or serious bodily injury." Id. § 1.07(a)(17). Serious bodily injury is defined
Bryant v. State Page 3
as "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious
permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ." Id. § 1.07(a)(46). Our determination of whether the State introduced
sufficient evidence to prove that a given BB gun qualifies as a "deadly weapon" requires
a case-by-case analysis in light of the statutory standards. James v. State, 425 S.W.3d 492,
495 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref'd).
A BB gun is not a deadly weapon per se. Adame v. State, 69 S.W.3d 581, 582 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002). In proving use of a deadly weapon other than a deadly weapon per
se, the State need show only that the weapon used was capable of causing serious bodily
injury or death in its use or intended use. Id.Facts/Application
The bank teller testified that when she initially encountered Bryant, he was a few
feet away. He moved directly in front of her 1 and pulled out what she believed was a
handgun. Bryant pointed it at her chest and demanded money. An officer employed by
the Marlin Police Department examined the BB gun and agreed that it could cause serious
bodily injury if it was pointed at someone from a very close distance. The weapon was
designed to shoot out, rapid fire, about 480 feet per second which, the officer said, is a
dangerous velocity. It could shoot 20 BBs at a time. The BB gun even had a warning on
it that careless use or misuse could cause serious injury or death.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find the
1
The still photographs from the surveillance video showed Bryant directly in front of the teller.
Bryant v. State Page 4
jury, as a rational trier of fact, could have found the BB gun was a deadly weapon.
Bryant’s sole issue is overruled. 2
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Bryant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 4, 2023
Do not publish
[CRPM]
2
Bryant invites this Court to reconsider this State’s policy behind labeling BB guns as deadly weapons. We
decline Bryant’s invitation.
Bryant v. State Page 5