Tramon Leontra Montrell Williams v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 14, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00301-CR
TRAMON LEONTRA MONTRELL WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-2076304-I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Appellant Tramon Leontra Montrell Williams appeals his conviction for
murder, for which he was sentenced to ninety-nine years’ confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division (TDCJID) and a $10,000
fine. He argues the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction, on
the theory that no rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was the person who shot and killed the victim. Based on the record before us, we
conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction, and we affirm
the judgment in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2020, a music video was filmed in the Deep Ellum
neighborhood of Dallas. Alonte Hickem, one of the individuals at the scene, was
shot five times and died as a result of the shooting.
Williams was charged by indictment for committing the murder of Hickem.
The indictment alleged that on or about August 1, 2020, in Dallas County, Williams
“did unlawfully then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of
ALONTE DEMIR BROADUS HICKEM, an individual, . . . by SHOOTING
[HICKEM] WITH A FIREARM, a deadly weapon” and further “did unlawfully then
and there intend to cause serious bodily injury to [Hickem] . . . and did then and there
commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to wit: by SHOOTING [HICKEM]
WITH A FIREARM, a deadly weapon, and did thereby cause the death of
[HICKEM], an individual.” See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(1)–(2).1 Also,
although not included in the indictment, the State filed a notice of intent to enhance
Williams’s punishment range with evidence of a prior felony conviction for the
offense of engaging in organizing criminal activity.
Williams entered a plea of “not guilty” to the indictment and pleaded “not
true” to the enhancement. A jury decided the guilt/innocence and punishment
phases, found him guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment, found true the
1
Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b) states, in part, that “[a] person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally
or knowingly causes the death of an individual; [or] (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.”
–2–
enhancement paragraph, and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ TDCJID
confinement and a $10,000 fine.
The trial court pronounced sentence, noted the affirmative finding that a
deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense, and entered judgment in
accordance with the jury’s verdict. Williams filed a motion for new trial that was
overruled by operation of law and timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.).
The factfinder is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight to be
given testimony. See Martin v. State, 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
We may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence or substitute our
judgment for that of the factfinder. Bohannan v. State, 546 S.W.3d 166, 178 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017). “When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume
that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that
determination.” Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
In conducting our review, we consider “all evidence in the record of the trial,
whether it was admissible or inadmissible.” Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767
–3–
(Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d
503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“[A] reviewing court is permitted to consider all
evidence in the trial-court record, whether admissible or inadmissible, when making
a legal-sufficiency determination.”).
In Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016), the Court explained:
Sufficiency review essentially addresses whether “the government’s
case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the
jury.” . . . . On sufficiency review, a reviewing court makes a limited
inquiry tailored to ensure that a defendant receives the minimum that
due process requires: a “meaningful opportunity to defend” against the
charge against him and a jury finding of guilt “beyond a reasonable
doubt.” . . . . The reviewing court considers only the “legal” question
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. at 243 (internal citations omitted). In other words, “All that a defendant is entitled
to on a sufficiency challenge is for the court to make a ‘legal’ determination whether
the evidence was strong enough to reach a jury at all.” Id. at 244 (quoting Jackson,
443 U.S. at 319).
In this case, in his sole issue, Williams argues “the evidence is legally
insufficient to prove that Tramon Williams is the person who shot and killed Alonte
Hickem.” An eyewitness who testified she saw the person who shot Hickem testified
she did not see the shooter in the courtroom and that she could hardly see the
shooter’s face because he had on a face mask and a hood.
But as the State notes in its brief, the jury had other evidence from which it
could reasonably infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Williams committed the
–4–
offense. Multiple video clips of the scene before, after, and during the shooting were
admitted, and from these videos, the eyewitness identified who she saw shoot
Hickem. Williams’s fingerprints were located on the right rear interior door handle
of a blue SUV that left the scene moments after the shooting, and the jury heard that
the person driving that SUV identified Williams from a photo lineup. The jury also
heard that at the time of his arrest, Williams possessed the same gun from which the
five cartridge casings found at the crime scene were shot, and he was wearing the
same type of shoes as those worn by the person who jumped into the blue SUV and
demanded that the driver take him away on the day of the shooting.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
a rational trier of fact could have found could have found the essential elements of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including that Williams was the person who
shot and killed Hickem. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (legal sufficiency standard);
Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 (same).
CONCLUSION
We overrule Williams’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ken Molberg/
220301f.u05 KEN MOLBERG
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
TRAMON LEONTRA MONTRELL On Appeal from the Criminal District
WILLIAMS, Appellant Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-2076304-I.
No. 05-22-00301-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Molberg. Justices Pedersen, III and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 14th day of August, 2023.
–6–