Woodrow Samuel Williams v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00479-CR
__________________
WOODROW SAMUEL WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12,504
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Woodrow Samuel Williams of aggravated robbery, and the
trial court assessed punishment at confinement for life. In his sole issue on appeal,
Williams argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because
the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice witness
testimony. The State asserts that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently
1
corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect Williams with the crime.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a
defendant cannot be convicted of an offense upon the testimony of an accomplice
without other corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense
committed. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14. When conducting a sufficiency
review of the non-accomplice witness evidence under article 38.14, we eliminate the
accomplice testimony and examine the remaining portions of the record to determine
if there is any evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the commission of the
offense. Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425, 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Solomon v.
State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). “The direct or circumstantial
non-accomplice evidence is sufficient corroboration if it shows that rational jurors
could have found that it sufficiently tended to connect the accused to the offense.”
Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442; see also Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504, 508 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). No particular amount of corroborating evidence is required for
sufficiency purposes. Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
“‘Tendency to connect’ rather than rational sufficiency is the standard[;] the
corroborating evidence need not be sufficient by itself to establish guilt.” Solomon,
49 S.W.3d at 361. The corroborating evidence need not directly link the defendant
2
to the commission of the crime. Vafaiyan v. State, 279 S.W.3d 374, 385 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d). There simply needs to be other evidence tending
to connect the defendant to the crime. Id. When there are conflicting views of the
evidence, we defer to the factfinder’s resolution of the evidence. Smith, 332 S.W.3d
at 442; Simmons, 282 S.W.3d at 508.
The jury heard Ronald Yex, the accomplice witness, testify that he and
Williams committed the robbery together. Yex explained that he went into the store
with a gun and stole cigarettes and money, and Williams was the driver of the van,
which belonged to Williams’s parents. In conducting our sufficiency review, we
eliminate Yex’s testimony and review the entire record to determine whether the
non-accomplice inculpatory evidence tends to connect Williams to the commission
of the aggravated robbery. See Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442; Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at
361-62.
The jury heard testimony from Deputy Omar Sheikh with the San Jacinto
Sheriff’s Office, who testified that he responded to an aggravated robbery at the
Shell station in Coldspring, and dispatch reported that the vehicle used in the robbery
was a tan van. Sheikh testified that his stop of the suspect vehicle was recorded on
his dash cam video. Sheikh explained that when he stopped the van, a white male
matching the description of the suspect exited the passenger side of the van and ran,
3
and Sheikh called in the van’s license plate before he pursued the suspect. Sheikh
caught the suspect, who was identified as Yex, and recovered the gun used in the
robbery, but the driver fled in the van.
The jury heard testimony from V.W., the manager of the store that was
robbed. V.W. testified that surveillance cameras from inside the store recorded the
robbery and the outside camera recorded the parking lot, and V.W. provided the
police with copies of the recordings. V.W. identified Yex as the robber, and she
testified that Yex ran toward a tan van when he left the store.
Detective Gary Sharpen testified that he investigated the robbery and viewed
the surveillance videos from the store and Sheikh’s dash cam video. Sharpen
testified that he conducted surveillance on the van used in the robbery and observed
Williams driving the van. Sharpen testified that when Williams was arrested, he was
driving the van, and the registered owner of the van was Williams’s stepfather.
Williams’s stepfather testified that he owns the van and allowed Williams to drive
it, and that Williams was in possession of the van when he was arrested.
In addition, the jury heard M.R., a witness for the defense, testify that she
currently resides in the state jail, and that when she talked to Williams, Williams told
her that he was in jail for a charge that occurred when Williams and M.R. were
fishing together. According to M.R., Williams asked her to testify in his defense,
4
and M.R. agreed, but M.R. testified that she was “high” on methamphetamine when
she went fishing with Williams and was unable to recall the date. A.M. also testified
in Williams’s defense. According to A.M., Williams was “too nice” with his parents’
van and loaned it out for her and others to use. According to A.M., the day the
robbery occurred, she saw Williams riding around with a girl looking for his van,
and Williams told her that RJ had the van. The jury also considered a written
statement from J.B, in which J.B. stated that when he was in jail, he heard Yex say
that he committed the robbery with his brother.
We conclude that a rational juror could have found that the non-accomplice
evidence sufficiently tends to connect Williams to the aggravated robbery. See
Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442; Simmons, 282 S.W.3d at 508; Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at
361-62; see also generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14. Accordingly, we
further conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Williams’s conviction. We
overrule Williams’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on January 2, 2020
Opinion Delivered April 15, 2020
Do Not Publish
5
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
6