Martin Vincent Pettway v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00203-CR
________________
MARTIN VINCENT PETTWAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-33171
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Martin Vincent Pettway 1 challenges his conviction for murder. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02. In his sole issue, Pettway complains there is
insufficient evidence to support his conviction and to corroborate the accomplice
witness testimony. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
1
The record reflects that Martin Vincent Pettway is also known as Martin
Vincent Pettway Jr.
1
Background
A grand jury indicted Pettway for murder, alleging he “intentionally and
knowingly cause[d] the death of an individual, namely: JESSE ANGEL
RODRIGUEZ, hereafter styled the Complainant, by shooting Complainant with a
deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm[.]” Prior to the shooting, Jesse was with his friends
and family eating at a pizza restaurant, and Pettway and his three friends were at the
same restaurant.
Marsha2
Marsha testified that on the day of the shooting, she was at the restaurant with
Jesse, her boyfriend Dennis, and a few other friends. She said there was a group of
four African Americans, two males and two females, walking out of the restaurant
when Jesse pushed his chair back to leave and “bumped into a man.” Marsha did not
remember if Jesse and the man, whom she described as a “tall light-skinned man[,]”
exchanged words, but she could tell the man was “upset.” She testified that Jesse left
after the group of African Americans, while she and her friends stayed inside. She
observed Jesse exchange words with the group outside but did not remember if it
became physical. During cross-examination, Marsha testified that she observed one
2
We use pseudonyms to conceal the witnesses’ identity. See Tex. Const. art.
1, § 30(a)(1) (granting the victim of a crime “the right to be treated with fairness and
with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice
process”).
2
of the girls holding back the “light-skinned male” from fighting Jesse in the parking
lot. Marsha explained that when she got into Dennis’s truck to leave, she noticed the
group of African Americans following them in a car. Marsha stated that Jesse was
driving his truck, and their friend Ethan was his passenger. Both Jesse and Dennis
exited the parking lot and turned into the middle lane of the three-lane service road
and stopped at a stoplight. Marsha testified that she and Dennis were several cars
behind Jesse when she observed the African Americans drive past in the right lane,
and she did not know which African American was driving. When the stoplight
turned green, Marsha saw Jesse turn left and go under an overpass, and she heard “a
gunshot[.]” When she got to Jesse, he was “bleeding out from the left side of his
head.”
Marsha called 911, and a copy of the 911 audio recording was admitted at
trial. On the call, Marsha described the African Americans’ vehicle as a black car
with a rear bumper missing. Marsha testified that she did not see anyone in the black
car with a gun, but she assumed the gunshots came from that car because “they were
having an argument.” At trial, Marsha identified Pettway as a dark-skinned male,
and she explained that he was part of the group at the restaurant and he was in the
black vehicle. She could not remember if she observed Pettway arguing with Jesse
before the shooting.
3
Dennis
Dennis, Marsha’s boyfriend, testified he was at the restaurant with Jesse the
day of the shooting. He stated that their group was seated by the main exit. He
recalled that when Jesse stood up to leave, he bumped someone exiting the
restaurant. The person Jesse bumped said, “‘Watch out’ or something.” Dennis
testified that the group exiting included two males, one dark skinned and one light
skinned, and two females, and after the person said “[w]atch out” the group exited
and then Jesse left. Dennis observed Jesse exchanging words with the group in the
parking lot, and when he saw one of the females “holding back the dark male[,]” he
and his friends went to “see what was going on.” He denied going to fight anyone in
the parking lot, or that Jesse planned to fight anyone.
Dennis explained that he was with Marsha in his truck and that Jesse and
Ethan were in Jesse’s truck, and when they entered the middle lane of the three-lane
feeder road, Dennis noticed a black car with a missing bumper following them. He
testified that the light-skinned male was driving the black car and the dark-skinned
male was in the passenger seat. According to Dennis, the group in the black car was
“staring at us but we just -- we were just like, ‘That’s the people from [the pizza
restaurant].’ We didn’t want no problems with them.” When the stop light turned
green, Dennis observed Jesse turn left and heard “three loud noises.”
4
The jury viewed surveillance video from the restaurant, and Dennis identified
his group of friends and Jesse on the video. Dennis explained the video showed Jesse
bumping the dark-skinned male with his chair, and he identified the dark-skinned
male as Pettway, although during cross-examination, he said the chair did not
actually bump Pettway. Dennis also stated that outside the restaurant, the light-
skinned and dark-skinned males exchanged words with Jesse.
Donald
Donald, Jesse’s older brother, was also at the restaurant. He recalled eating
pizza and said that when the meal ended, Jesse and a group of two males and two
females were leaving the restaurant at the same time. He testified that Jesse bumped
the “light-skinned” male, who said, “‘Watch yourself.’” Donald stated the dark-
skinned male was “basically walking with him.” Donald explained that Jesse walked
out behind the group, and he saw an interaction between Jesse and the group outside.
He did not think Jesse went outside to “pick a fight[.]” According to Donald, the
interaction was over when he got outside, and he left with his other brother and Jesse
left with a friend.
Donald testified that when they left, they entered the middle lane of the three-
lane feeder road and stopped at a stoplight. Donald testified that he was behind
Jesse’s truck when he observed the group from the restaurant pass him in a black
Ford Fusion, roll down their windows, put on a mask, and drive next to Jesse’s
5
vehicle. Donald testified the light-skinned male was driving the car, but he did not
see the dark-skinned male. Donald explained that when the stoplight turned green,
Jesse turned left, the black car turned right, and he heard at least four gunshots. He
did not see who fired the gunshots.
Jimmy
Jimmy, Jesse’s younger brother, testified that when Jesse was leaving the
restaurant, “[I] guess since [Jesse] was facing like not towards the exit, I guess he
didn’t see that they were coming through, so, the chair, it probably hit them.”
According to Jimmy, there were two males in the group, and the dark-skinned male,
who he identified as Pettway, said, “Watch yourself.” When the group and Jesse
went outside, Jimmy observed both males “exchanging words” with Jesse. The
exchange was over when Jimmy got outside, so he got into his car with Donald and
another friend, and he saw the group circling the parking lot. Jimmy explained that
Jesse was stopped in the middle lane of the three-lane feeder road preparing to turn
left, when the group passed Jesse on the right with their back window rolled down.
Jimmy did not see who was in the backseat. Jimmy testified the light-skinned male
was driving and “they were like covering their face[,]” and as they were all turning
left, he heard five gunshots. Jimmy testified that his friend in his vehicle yelled “Hey,
they’re shooting[,]” and a bullet hit his passenger door. During cross-examination,
Jimmy testified that the light-skinned male was more animated with Jesse during the
6
exchange in the parking lot, while the dark-skinned male was “looking back and
walking[.]” He also contradicted his police statement, in which he reported that the
driver of the black car was the man Jesse bumped into and the shooter. Jimmy denied
seeing a gun.
Ethan
Ethan testified that when Jesse got up to leave the restaurant, a man, who he
identified as Pettway told Jesse to “Watch yourself[,]” and walked out. Ethan
testified Pettway was with a light-skinned male and two females. While watching
the surveillance video in court, Ethan explained he saw the two men confront Jesse
in the parking lot but did not hear what they said. Ethan testified everyone in their
group was “calm” and left in a “peaceful kind of way.” Ethan was in the front
passenger seat of Jesse’s truck when he observed the group pull behind them in the
parking lot in a black car, and the driver had his window down and gave them a
“look[.]” He described the driver as the “light-skinned guy[,]” and he did not see
where the dark-skinned guy was sitting. Ethan testified that they were on the feeder
road sitting at a stoplight, when he noticed the black car was next to them, and both
windows on the driver’s side were rolled down. Ethan saw the driver put on a mask
and that there was someone in the back seat. Ethan then testified as follows:
Well, as soon as we started to drive off to -- you know, to actually get
under the underpass, I see that the car just goes faster and stops like,
you know, like as if he was going to turn right but he kind of stops. And
I just told Jesse go straight instead of going left and from there I just
7
heard like a loud noise and I thought it was his tire that blew. I mean, it
happened often, you know. So, I told him “Hey, bro,” I was, like, “Hey,
your tire,” and when I look at him, I was like -- I was like -- he was like
not responding to what I was telling him. And that’s whenever he lets
go of the wheel and starts falling towards me.
After hearing four shots, he knew that “Yeah. We’re getting shot at[.]” Ethan did not
see the gun or the shooter.
Nyah Mayfield
Mayfield, who was dating Pettway, testified that on the day of the shooting
she was at the restaurant with Pettway, Xavier Parrish, and Xavier’s girlfriend,
Taylor Jones. She described Parrish and Pettway as best friends. Mayfield testified
that they drove to the restaurant in Parrish’s black four-door car. Mayfield denied
that words were exchanged with Jesse inside the restaurant, but when they were
outside, Parrish was trying to be a bully when he asked Jesse and his friend, “Hey,
bro, y’all good?” Mayfield explained the exchange did not escalate, and the parties
got into their vehicles. She testified Parrish was driving, she was in the rear
passenger’s side seat, Jones was in the front passenger’s side seat, and Pettway was
in the rear driver’s side seat. Mayfield testified that when they got in the car, Parrish
“wasn’t finished, you know, just being a bully[,] and he “kind of circled the parking
lot[.]” She described Parrish as trying to “get their attention[,]” but Jesse and his
friends were not “retaliating[.]” Mayfield explained that when they left the parking
8
lot, Jesse entered the middle lane of the three-lane feeder road, and Parrish turned
into the right lane.
Mayfield testified that when they pulled up next to Jesse’s vehicle, Parrish
had his windows down, was playing loud music, and grabbed a towel and put it over
his head. Parrish twice told Pettway, “Do it, brother[.]” When the light changed,
Mayfield saw Pettway lean out the window and look back, and she heard “six or
seven” gunshots. Mayfield stated that she started “going off[,]” but stopped when
she “realized that, well, if they’re capable of doing something like that, maybe I
should calm down.” Mayfield testified that she believes Pettway fired the gunshots.
She also acknowledged that although she talked to the police, she was under
indictment for Jesse’s murder. Mayfield denied that the prosecutor or police
promised her anything in exchange for her testimony, and she claimed her testimony
was truthful. During cross-examination, Mayfield testified she did not see Pettway
or Parrish with a gun and that Parrish could have fired the gunshots, but she did not
know who the shooter was.
Taylor Jones
Taylor Jones testified that she and Parrish were in a relationship the day of the
shooting. Jones testified that when she went to the restaurant with Parrish, Pettway,
and Mayfield, she noticed that Pettway had a gun on his hip. According to Jones, as
they were preparing to leave, “someone…bumped [Pettway].” Jones explained the
9
man was part of a large group of people sitting in the front of the restaurant. She
testified that she did not see the “bump[,]” but Pettway said it happened and he was
“very upset.” She described the exchange in the parking lot, stating Parrish
exchanged words, but it “wasn’t nonfriendly[,] [and] didn’t pose a threat.” Jones
testified that there was no confrontation before they got into Parrish’s car, and she
explained that Parrish was driving, she was in the front passenger seat, Mayfield was
in the rear passenger seat, and Pettway was in the rear driver’s side seat. Jones
testified that after they entered the right lane of the three-lane feeder road, they
stopped at a light beside Jesse’s vehicle, which was in the middle lane. Jones
explained that when the light turned green, Parrish turned right, and she heard “four
or five” gunshots. Jones testified she saw Pettway holding a black handgun. She
recalled that Pettway had a “smirk” on his face and said, “that he didn’t give a fuck
and that if I said something, he’d kill me, too.” Jones testified that she believes
Pettway fired the gunshots “[b]ased on his demeanor, the gun being in his hand and
his response to me when I told him he was going to have to answer for that.” Jones
did not go to the police that day because she was “scared for my life.” Jones
explained she talked to the police two days later, and she confirmed she was under
indictment for Jesse’s murder.
On cross-examination, Jones admitted that in her police statement she said she
did not see a gun but thought that she saw a gun. She reiterated that on the day of the
10
shooting, she saw a black gun when she turned around in Parrish’s car to look at
Pettway. She confirmed that Parrish and Jesse exchanged words in the parking lot
and that she had to grab Parrish and tell him to go to the car. She denied arguing
with Parrish the day of the shooting, that Parrish circled the parking lot before
entering the feeder road, and that Parrish’s windows were down when he pulled
alongside Jesse’s vehicle.
Brandon Rodriguez
Brandon Rodriguez, a police officer with the City of Beaumont, testified that
he was working “off duty” on the day of the shooting when he received a call about
“shots fired” and that someone had been shot in the head on a nearby road. Rodriguez
stated that he and another officer were the first law enforcement on the scene that
day. 3 He described the scene as “[c]haotic[,]” with several vehicles and people in the
intersection, lots of voices and “moving parts all at the same time.” He found Jesse
sitting in the driver’s seat of a truck in the intersection. He recalled that the back
window of Jesse’s truck was shattered and that there was a small bullet hole through
the driver side headrest.
3
James Blanchard was on off-duty patrol with Rodriguez and testified as to
his role that day. He confirmed that he and Rodriguez were the first officers on the
scene. He stated that due to his EMT background, his main concern and role was to
medically treat Jesse, and he rode to the hospital with the medics.
11
Dorian Pantallion
Dorian Pantallion, a police officer with the Beaumont Police Department,
stated that when he responded to a call regarding a shooting at an intersection, he
located four to five shell casings on the ground. He testified that the shell casings
were found five to ten feet apart and were consistent with shells being fired out of a
moving vehicle turning right on the feeder road. He also testified they were
consistent with the shots fired at Jesse’s vehicle. Video footage from his body
camera was admitted into evidence. On cross-examination, Pantallion testified he
did not know how the spent shell casings came to be in the street but noted the shell
casings looked “fresh[.]”
Michelle Ceja
Michelle Ceja testified that she is a crime scene technician for the Beaumont
Police Department. She testified that during her investigation of the crime scene, she
spoke to officers, marked the scene, took video, and collected shell casings. Video
and photographs of the shell casings were admitted at trial. Ceja described the
location where she found the shell casings. She noted that some of the shell casings
had been run over by vehicles. Ceja testified that the shell casings were processed
for fingerprints, but none were recovered, which was not uncommon. She agreed on
12
cross-examination that the location of the shell casings did not demonstrate where
they originated. 4
Dr. Ray Fernandez
Dr. Ray Fernandez testified he performed Jesse’s autopsy and recovered a
bullet from Jesse’ s head. He identified Jesse’s death as a homicide. Photographs of
Jesse’s autopsy were admitted at trial.
Hunter Jones
Hunter Jones, a forensic investigator and firearm examiner for the Jefferson
County Crime Lab. As a firearm examiner, he explained his examination procedures
and testified that he uses his education to examine casing and bullets to determine
whether there is “a common source of origin” or if “they all go back to a singular
source or [if] multiple firearms could be responsible.” Jones testified he examined
the bullet casings collected from the scene, and he explained that they were all the
same brand .45 caliber, including the bullet collected from Jesse’s autopsy. Jones
explained his process of determining the origin of the bullet casings without a
firearm to compare and opined that the bullet casings were all fired from the same
unknown firearm.
4
Lyndsie Breaux, a crime scene technician with the Beaumont Police
Department, testified she attended Jesse’s autopsy and collected the bullet removed
from his head for evidence. The bullet was admitted into evidence.
13
Tomora Hamilton
Tomora Hamilton, a detective with the Beaumont Police Department, testified
she was the lead investigator in Jesse’s murder. Hamilton explained she reviewed
surveillance footage from the restaurant and witness statements, and after the
surveillance footage was released to the media, tips came in through crime stoppers.
At trial, Hamilton identified the various people on the surveillance footage including
Jesse and Pettway, and she identified Pettway in court. Hamilton testified that the
footage showed a group of four people, including Pettway, a “darker-skinned
male[,]” Parrish, a “lighter-skinned male[,]” Mayfield, and Taylor. Hamilton
testified that everyone in the group was arrested, and she attempted to obtain their
statements. She noted that the two females’ statements were “fairly consistent” about
the circumstances surrounding the shooting and the identity of the shooter. Both
females identified Pettway as the shooter.
When Hamilton spoke to Pettway with his attorney present, Pettway
confirmed he was with the group at the restaurant and that he was in the rear seat
behind Parrish, who was driving when they left the restaurant. Pettway reported that
Parrish was the shooter. Hamilton confirmed the locations of the cars and bullets in
the intersection and stated she did not believe it was possible for someone driving a
car to shoot backwards and hit so many targets. She testified that the five .45 caliber
shells found on the road were consistent with someone leaning outside of the vehicle
14
and shooting. In her review of the evidence she did not think it was likely that the
driver was the shooter, and the evidence is consistent with the rear driver’s side
passenger being the shooter.
Hamilton noted that the inconsistent statements from Jesse’s group of friends
and family was “common” given the traumatic event. During cross-examination,
Hamilton agreed that no one in Jesse’s group observed a gun and that at least one
witness believed the “light-skinned male” was the shooter. She reiterated that it
would be “difficult” to drive and shoot a gun out of the window, but she did agree it
was possible for someone to take their foot off the brake and shoot. She stated that
while Parrish initially told her Pettway did not have a gun, he later said Pettway had
a gun and that he was the shooter. She acknowledged the only people who reported
Pettway having a gun were the other indicted passengers of the vehicle.
The jury charge included the following instruction regarding the sufficiency
of testimony of the accomplices, Jones and Mayfield. The charge instructed the jury
that it could not convict Pettway on the testimony of Jones or Mayfield unless the
testimony is corroborated, and that evidence is sufficient to corroborate the
testimony of an accomplice if that evidence tends to connect Pettway with the
commission of the offense. The charge instructed that the testimony of another
accomplice is not sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, and that
the corroborative evidence must be from some source other than accomplices. The
15
charge further instructed that proof that the defendant was present at the scene of the
crime that was committed is not, in itself, sufficient to corroborate the testimony of
an accomplice. The jury found Pettway guilty of murder and assessed his
punishment at forty-six years of confinement.
Analysis
In his sole issue, Pettway challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction for murder. Pettway argues that there was insufficient evidence to
corroborate the accomplice witness testimony of Mayfield and Jones.
A defendant commits the offense of murder if he “intentionally or knowingly
causes the death of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1). The
indictment alleged that Pettway “intentionally and knowingly cause[d] the death of
. . . Jesse [], . . . by shooting [him] with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm[.]” In
reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could
have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). We give deference to the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly resolve
conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences
from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. If the record contains
conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved such facts in
16
favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,
899 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326); Clayton v. State,
235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The jury as factfinder is the sole judge
of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, and it may believe all,
some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. See Febus v. State, 542
S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 919
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995). The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence nor determine the
credibility of the evidence, nor does it substitute its own judgment for that of the
factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
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
witness 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 evidence under article 38.14, we eliminate
the accomplice testimony and examine the remaining portions 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
17
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 362. The corroborating evidence need not directly link the defendant
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 non-accomplice evidence that tends to connect Pettway with Jesse’s
murder includes:
- Testimony from Donald and Ethan that Jesse bumped or backed his
chair into Pettway in the restaurant.
- Testimony from Jimmy and Ethan that Pettway told Jesse to “Watch
yourself[,]” or “Watch out[.]”
- Testimony from Dennis, Jimmy, and Ethan that Pettway and Jesse
exchanged words in the parking lot.
- Hamilton’s statement that Pettway confirmed he was seated in the
driver’s side rear seat of the car.
18
- Statements from Dennis, Jimmy, Donald, and Ethan that Parrish was
in the driver’s seat of the car.
- Statement from Hamilton that it would be difficult to drive the car
and shoot the gun out of the window.
- Statement from Hamilton that the bullet casings found on the scene
indicate that the gun was fired outside of the window.
- Statement from Hamilton that the evidence was consistent with the
rear driver’s side passenger being the shooter.
- Statement from Hamilton that Pettway confirmed he was in the rear
seat behind Parrish, who was the driver.
The jury also had the opportunity to view the video surveillance footage from the
restaurant, as well as photographs and other evidence at trial, and to observe Pettway
at trial.
We conclude that a rational juror could have found that the non-accomplice
evidence sufficiently tends to connect Pettway to the murder. 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. We further conclude that the
evidence is sufficient to support Pettway’s conviction of murder. See Jackson, 443
U.S. at 319; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 902, n.19; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. We
overrule Pettway’s sole issue. Having overruled Pettway’s sole issue, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
19
AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on March 4, 2024
Opinion Delivered July 31, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.
20