Abel Garcia v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00227-CR
ABEL GARCIA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 379th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020CR5334, Honorable Ron Rangel, Presiding
February 27, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Abel Garcia, was convicted by a jury of
murder, enhanced by a prior felony conviction.1 He was sentenced to sixty years’
1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b), 12.42(c)(1).
confinement. By a sole issue, he maintains the State failed to disprove self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt.2 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The victim was on parole and had been living with his sister, her son, and other
unrelated individuals following his release. He befriended Appellant, who was homeless,
and provided him with food and clean clothes. He did not, however, want Appellant inside
his sister’s house when he was not present.
Appellant was a tattoo artist and the victim wanted to help him with his craft. He
gifted him tattoo machines and other equipment for tattooing. According to the victim’s
sister, Appellant was “happy” and “teary-eyed” with the victim’s generosity. They ate
dinner together and afterwards Appellant tattooed the victim and his sister.
The next morning, while the victim’s sister was in her bedroom, she heard a noise
and found Appellant sitting on her porch shaking from the cold. She let him sit inside the
house even though the victim was not home. When the victim returned, he was upset
that Appellant was inside the house. He and Appellant eventually left.
Later that morning, the victim returned home and was extremely upset. He told
his sister Appellant had stolen his favorite knife—a silver knife—after the kindness he had
shown him. The victim’s sister told the victim not to associate with Appellant anymore.
2 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by
the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant
issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court . TEX. R. APP. P.
41.3.
2
Despite the warning, when Appellant knocked on the door later that morning, the victim
let him inside. The sister became upset and went to sit on the couch while her brother
and Appellant spoke. She claimed Appellant wanted her brother to help him shoot up
heroin. They retreated to the victim’s bathroom.
When they exited the bathroom, the victim’s sister noticed Appellant was wearing
a belt clip to the knife he had stolen from the victim. She offered him a different knife if
he would return the one he stole. During their conversation, a good friend of the victim’s
came to the house. The friend was visibly upset and wanted to speak with the victim. He
and the victim went to the kitchen to discuss why he was so upset. Appellant interrupted
their conversation several times and the victim repeatedly told him to go sit down while
he spoke with his other friend. Appellant complied and sat down next to the victim’s sister.
He later returned to the kitchen and interrupted the victim and his friend again.
According to the victim’s sister, after Appellant’s last interruption, she saw blood
on the kitchen floor and Appellant holding a knife in his hand. The friend the victim had
been speaking with ran out of the house and the victim’s sister went to check on the
victim. Appellant tried to stop her and said, “[y]eah, I did it, and what?” She pushed
Appellant away and found the victim with blood gushing from his neck. He collapsed in
her arms. Appellant fled the scene.
The sister testified she was screaming “psycho loud” and her son, who had been
upstairs, came downstairs and called police. The victim eventually died in his sister’s
arms.
3
During the investigation, numerous witness statements were taken, and all
witnesses named Appellant as the suspect. A warrant was obtained, and Appellant was
arrested the next day.
During his interview with a detective, Appellant confessed to stabbing the victim
but claimed he acted in self-defense. He maintained the victim grabbed a kitchen knife
off the counter.3 He told the detective, “I had to defend myself one way or another. It
was him or me.” He admitted he “stuck” the victim “in the neck” and ran away because
he was scared. He denied having any intent to hurt anyone but considered himself a
target. He believed the victim was a member of the Mexican Mafia out to get him.
Appellant did not testify until the punishment phase. His videotaped confession,
however, was introduced during a detective’s testimony in the guilt/innocence phase. The
jury charge included a self-defense instruction. The jury rejected Appellant’s claim of self-
defense and found him guilty of murder.
APPLICABLE LAW—SELF DEFENSE
Self-defense is a justification defense. Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2011). “[A] person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against
the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.” See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a).
See also Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “Reasonable
3 Later, Appellant claimed the victim pulled a knife from his pocket and unlocked it.
4
belief” is a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same
circumstances as the actor. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(42).
Self-defense is a confession and avoidance defense because it requires the
defendant to admit to his otherwise illegal conduct. Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340,
343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020); Ayala v. State, No. 04-19-00593-CR, 2020 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7675, at *6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). It is a fact issue to be determined by a jury and “a jury
verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant’s self-defense theory.”
Benevento v. State, No. 04-21-00483-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1076, at *13 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Feb. 22, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
A defendant claiming self-defense has the initial burden to produce evidence
supporting it, while the State has the burden to disprove it. Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at
608. The State’s burden does not, however, require the production of evidence; rather,
only that it proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.STANDARD OF REVIEW
A reviewing court views the evidence to support a jury’s rejection of self-defense
under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
Borton v. State, No. 04-22-00255-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6760, at *14 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Aug. 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In
resolving the sufficiency of the evidence of a self-defense claim, a court does not look to
whether the State presented evidence which refuted self-defense; rather the reviewing
court determines whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
5
prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have rejected the claim of self-
defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991).
ANALYSIS
By his sole issue, Appellant contends the State failed to disprove self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts the jury acted irrationally in reaching its verdict.
We disagree.
The State was required to prove the elements of murder beyond a reasonable
doubt. The victim’s sister was not an eyewitness to the stabbing. She saw a large amount
of blood on the floor and went to the kitchen where she saw Appellant holding a knife and
her brother bleeding from his neck.4
Although the evidence showed there was a knife with a black handle and red tape
on the kitchen counter within the victim’s reach, the testimony established that knife was
used to cut food and there was no evidence the victim had used it to threaten Appellant.
By his own testimony, Appellant claimed the victim took a knife out of his pocket and
unlocked it, but no such knife was recovered on the victim.
Appellant’s version of events is some evidence he was justified in using deadly
force; however, there was no other evidence supporting his version that the victim was
using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force against Appellant that would have
4 The defense theorized the victim’s other friend who had been in the kitchen and had run out of
the house could have committed the murder, but he was ruled out as a suspect.
6
justified the use of deadly force. Appellant did not have any injuries or defensive wounds
on him. The evidence negated that at the time of the stabbing, the victim and Appellant
were arguing or fighting. No weapons of any kind were found on the victim. The detective
testified Appellant was the aggressor. See generally Allgood v. State, No. 04-11-00358-
CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7232, at *10–12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 29, 2012, pet.
ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding jury’s rejection of self-defense
theory even when defendant produced some evidence to support self-defense).
The medical examiner testified the victim had three sharp injuries to his body. One
was on the right side of his neck which resulted in his death and two other injuries were
on his hands. She referred to the hand injuries as “defensive-type injuries” which could
have come from putting his hands up to protect himself or to grab the knife from Appellant.
Contrary to Appellant’s theory the victim was trying to kill him, the evidence showed
the victim and his sister befriended him, fed him, and sheltered him from the cold. The
victim also bought him the goods needed to begin a tattooing business. There was no
evidence other than Appellant’s confession to show the victim was in possession of a
knife or weapon to justify Appellant’s use of deadly force. Appellant claimed the victim
threatened him with a kitchen knife but then claimed he took a knife out of his pocket and
unlocked it. But no weapon was found on the victim. Appellant admitted he stabbed the
victim and ran away because he was scared.5
5 A jury may draw an inference of guilt from an accused fleeing the scene. Clayton v. State, 235
S.W.3d 772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
7
The evidence also casts doubt on Appellant’s assertion the victim was a member
of the Mexican Mafia out to get him. An expert witness testified there was no evidence
the victim was a member of the Mexican Mafia or any other gang.
To prevail, Appellant was required to show he reasonably believed, as an ordinary
and prudent person would have, that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect
himself against the victim’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force while they were
talking in the kitchen. The only evidence of alleged self-defense came from Appellant’s
videotaped confession during his interview with the Detective. He admitted stabbing the
victim because he feared for his life. There was, however, no other evidence to support
a reasonable belief that Appellant needed to protect himself from the victim.
The jury was presented with conflicting versions of the events that led to the
victim’s death. As the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses, the jury
was free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented. Chambers v. State,
805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We presume the jury resolved any
conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict. Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). It was within the jury’s province to accept or reject the defensive
evidence. Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 609; Greenwood v. State, No. 04-21-00313-CR,
2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1470, at *13 (Tex. App.—San Antonio March 8, 2023, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the accused, as
long as the cumulative effect of all the incriminating facts are sufficient to support the
conviction. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Alexander
8
v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)). Circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial
evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Appellant’s theory was a credibility issue for the jury to resolve and did so against
him. We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to have found
the essential elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject Appellant’s
claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury did not act irrationally in
reaching its verdict. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Alex Yarbrough
Justice
Do not publish.
9