Stanley Laroy Ford Jr. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-23-00120-CR
___________________________
STANLEY LAROY FORD, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 396th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1662965
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant Stanley Laroy Ford, Jr. of the offenses of murder,
possession of a firearm by a felon, and tampering with physical evidence. The jury
assessed his punishment at 80 years’ confinement for the murder offense, 12 years’
confinement for the possession of a firearm by a felon offense, and 5 years’
confinement for the tampering with physical evidence offense. The trial court
sentenced Ford accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. In his
sole issue, Ford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2020, Ford shot and killed Ibrahim Johnson at the Metro 7000
apartment complex. Asia Cobb testified that Johnson was her boyfriend and that they
moved into the apartment complex sometime in 2020. According to Cobb, Johnson
and Ford—who also lived in the apartment complex—initially had a cordial
relationship, but later there was tension between them resulting in escalating
confrontations. In the days prior to the shooting, the police were called numerous
times concerning complaints between Johnson and Ford and his friends. Cobb
recalled an incident where Ford and his friend came to the couple’s apartment to fight
Johnson.
Cobb testified that on the day of the shooting, she and Johnson took their dog
to a dog park. When they returned, Ford approached them with a gun. Ford asked
Johnson why he had been on Ford’s porch. Before Johnson could respond, Ford
2
fired a shot. Johnson ran, and Ford chased after him. Cobb stated that Ford shot
again, and Johnson tripped and fell. After Johnson fell, Ford stood over him and shot
him. Cobb testified that Ford ran in the direction of his apartment after shooting
Johnson.
Another resident of the apartment complex testified that he was outside at the
time of the shooting. He heard a shot and ducked between two vehicles. The
resident then saw Ford stand over Johnson and shoot him.
Detective Jerry Cedillo with the Fort Worth Police Department arrived at the
scene. He stated that Ford was identified as a potential suspect, and an arrest warrant
was issued for him. On November 3, 2020, Ford was stopped for a traffic stop and
placed under arrest. Detective Cedillo interviewed Ford, and a video of that interview
was played before the jury. Ford told Detective Cedillo that on the morning of the
shooting, he had received a call that Johnson was on his balcony trying to break into
his apartment. Ford said that Johnson had made previous threats to harm his
children. Ford admitted to Detective Cedillo that he confronted Johnson and then
shot him at close range.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Federal due process requires that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt
every element of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 2787 (1979); see U.S. Const. amend XIV. The Jackson standard of review, which
is explained below, is the “only standard that a reviewing court should apply in
3
determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal
offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (overruling Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d
126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). “[W]e review the sufficiency of the evidence
establishing the elements of a criminal offense under the single sufficiency standard
set out in Jackson v. Virginia.” Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014).
In our evidentiary-sufficiency review, we view all evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found
the crime’s essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319,
99 S. Ct. at 2789; Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The
factfinder alone judges the evidence’s weight and credibility. See Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 38.04; Martin v. State, 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
We may not re-evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our
judgment for the factfinder’s. Queeman, 520 S.W.3d at 622. Instead, we determine
whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based on the cumulative force of the
evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Braughton v. State,
569 S.W.3d 593, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“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.”). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences
4
in favor of the verdict, and we must defer to that resolution. Braughton, 569 S.W.3d
at 608.
III. DISCUSSION
In his sole issue, Ford argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for murder. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon or tampering with
physical evidence.
Ford specifically argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for murder because he acted in response to Johnson’s threatening his
children and attempting to break into his apartment. Ford requested jury instructions
on sudden passion,1 defense of a third party, and self-defense. His requests were
denied. Ford does not argue on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his
requested jury instructions or complain that the jury was improperly charged.
Although Ford argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for murder because he acted in self-defense or in defense of others, those
defenses were not before the jury.
A person commits the offense of murder if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or
1
Sudden passion means passion directly caused by and arising out of
provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which
passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former
provocation. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(a)(2).
5
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act
clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1)(2).
The jury heard evidence that Ford confronted an unarmed Johnson and then
fired a shot. Johnson attempted to flee, but Ford chased after him. After Johnson
fell to the ground, Ford stood over him and shot him at close range. Ford admitted
to these facts in an interview with Detective Cedillo. Based on this evidence, a
rational jury could have found Ford murdered Johnson; therefore, it is sufficient to
support Ford’s conviction for murder. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789;
Evans v. State, 440 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Tex. App.—Waco, 2013, pet. ref’d). We overrule
Ford’s sole issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: February 29, 2024
6