Canton, Jamarios Lechristopher

673-/5
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ORIGINAL
JAMARIOS LEGHRISTOPHER CANTON,
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
-vs-
03 2015
THE STATE OF TEXAS, . t _. ,
Abel Acosta, Cierk
ON PETITION SEEKING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
OF COURT OF APPEALS NO. 12-12-00118-CR FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN
TRIAL COURT CASE NO. F1017409 OUT OF
THE 145th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NACOGDOCHES COUNTY]
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
JAMARIOS L. CANTON, pro se-
Robertson Unit, TDCJ No. 1771951
12071 FM 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
Appellant-Petitioner
5CAM&
(CCA>
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE., v
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY v
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 1
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 2
THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW •• 2
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' DECISION IN BROOKS v. STATE IS WRONG 2
CONCLUSION 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF &
VERIFICATION BY UNSWORN DECLARATIONS- 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * 7
APPENDIX • 8
OPINION OF THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS — TYLER, TEXAS
Mot Reported in S.W.3d, WL , Tex.App. LEXIS
JUDGMENT OF THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS — December 20, 2012
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES £M£
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979) passim
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S. Ct. 2211 (1982) ._ passim
United States v. Schorr, 462 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1972) 4
Winship; In re, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970) 2
STATE CASES PAGE
Alexander v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) 3
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) passim
Cardenas v. State, 30 .S.W.3d 384 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) 3
Citizens National Bank v. Allen Rae Investments, Inc.,
142 S.W.3d 459 (Tex.App.- Fort Worth 2004) 4
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) passim
Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 ..(Tex.Crim.App. 2001) 4
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) 4
Fisher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) 2,3
Garcia v. State^ 919 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) 4
Grant v. State. 989 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]%L999) 4-5
Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) 4
Guevara v. State, 152 S..U.3 45 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) 3, 4
Hall v. State, 86 S.W.3 235 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002) 4-5
Hammerlv Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1997) , 4
J.M.C.D.; In re, 190 S.W.3d 779 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006) 4-5
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) .. 4
Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) 3
King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) 3
Lee v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 401, 214 S.W.2d 619 (1948) 4
Louis v. State, 159 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2005) 4-5
-li-
STATE CASES (continued) PAGE
Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2003) 4
Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) 3
Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) 4
Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) 3
Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W*.2d 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) 3
Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000) 3
Rodriguez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997) 3
Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) 3
Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) 3
Urbano v. State, 837 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) 4-5
Ward v. State, 143 S.W.3d 271 (Tex.App.- Waco 2004) 3
Ware v. State, 62 S.W.3d 344 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001) 4
Will. v. State, 692 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) 3
Williamson v. State, 156 Tex. Crim. 520, 244 S.W.2d 202 (1951) 4
CONSTITUTION. STATUTES, CODES, AND RULES PAGE
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV.... 3
TEXAS PENAL CODE §2.01 • 2~3
-in-
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Jamarios LeChristopher Canton, Petitioner pro se in this case, believes
that oral argument will be absolutely necessary for being able to fully explain
the underlying reasons that this Court's Brooks v. State opinion and decision
is patently incorrect and flawed where it was contrary to the Supreme Court of
the United States' holding and decision handed down in Tibbs v. Florida, 457
U.S. 31, 102 S. Ct. 2211 (1982). This issue is central and crucial to the Court
of Appeals' erroneous reading and application of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979), and this Court's intended purposes behind its Clewis
v. State decision.
In the event that this Court determines that oral argument is necessary,
Petitioner respectfully moves the Court to invite the attorney who briefed the
appeal in tha court below, to participate on Petitioner's behalf in presenting
oral argument.
JAMARIOS L. CANTON
-IV-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Jamarios Canton ("Canton") was indicted on February 19, 2010,
for one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Cause No. F1017409
in the 145th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. Contained
within the indictment was an enhancement paragraph alleging that Canton had
previously been convicted of attempted robbery in 1995. The case was called
for trial on February 27, 2012, at which time both sides were present and_an-
nounced ready for trial, and a jury was then selected and empaneled. Trial be
gan on March 5, 2012, and after all of the evidence had been presented, and the
prosecution:, and defense, closed and rested, the jury found Canton guilty the
next day, on March 6, 2012. That same day, the jury heard evidence and argu
ment on punishment. The jury's verdict found the enhancement paragraph "True,"
and sentenced Canton to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ").
The Twelfth Court of Appeals at Tyler, Texas, affirmed the conviction and
sentence, overruling Canton's sole issue he urged on appeal, which was that the
evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support a guilty verdict and
rejected Canton's factually insufficient ground in light of Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010)(plurality op.)(holding that the legal suf
ficiency standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia is the only standard that a
reviewing court should apply in 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).
STATEMENT OP PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case was tried in the 145th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches
County, Texas, before the Honorable Campbell Cox, II, in which aguilty verdict
was returned by the jury on March 6, 2012. Following the verdict on guilt, the
jury sentenced Canton to life imprisonment in the TDCJ. Canton then perfec-
-v-
ted a timely appeal, submitting his Brief of Appellant on July 9, 2012; there
after, on July 18, 2012, the State filed its Brief of Appellee. The case was
submitted to the appellate panel on August 23, 2012, with the opinion being de
livered, and the Judgment rendered, on December 20, 2012.
On January 16, 2013, Canton submitted his First Motion For Extension Of
Time To File Petition For Discretionary Review; and his Motion For Suspension
Of Rule[ 9.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure]. Both motions were
granted by the Court: Rule 9.3(b) was suspended, and Canton was granted-the ex
tension of time and given up to, and including, Friday, March 22, 2013, to file
this instant petition. The Certificate of Service attached hereto certifies
that this petition was deposited into the prison's internal Legal Mail System,
under the Prison Mailbox Rule, for mailing to the Clerk of the Court of Crimi
nal Appeals, on Friday afternoon, March 22, 2013.
-vi-
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
As required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Canton indicates
the specific rule provisions under which he asks that the Court of Criminal Ap
peals to review the Court of Appeals' decision and judgment, where it:
A. Conflicts with other opinions of other courts of appeals [Tex.R.App.P.
Rule 66.3(a)].
B. Has decided an important question of state and federal law in such a
way that it conflicts with applicable decisions, of the Court of Crimi
nal Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States [Tex.R.App.P.
Rule 66.3(c)].
C. The Court of Appeals' decision had been based upon an erroneous deci
sion in Brooks v. State, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals had
incorrectly overruled and abrogated its insufficiency of the evidence
standard that the Court had enunciated in Clewis v. State, where the
Clewis.'-. Court had based its two-pronged insufficiency of evidence stan
dards on (1) Jackson v. Virginia for "legal insufficiency" challenges;
and on (2) Tibbs v. Florida, for challenges that are directed at the
weight of the evidence, a standard that over the years following Clew-
Is and its progeny of cases, had eventually been recharacterized ;as a
"factual insufficiency" standard, instead of the "weight of evidence"
standard that had originally been intended by the Clewis Court LTex.R.
App.P. Rule 66.3(f)].
Specifically, the Court of Appeals' decision requires review by the Court
of Criminal Appeals for determining—
1. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals should revisit Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010), for determining if Clewis had or
iginally mandated that (1) "legal insufficiency" challenges were to be
reviewed under Jackson v. Virginia; whereas (2), "factual insufficien
cy" challenges were to be reviewed under Tibbs V. Florida as a chal
lenge regarding the "weight of the evidence."
2. Should grounds on, appeal that challenges the evidence's legal and fac
tual sufficiency, be strictly construed as such, or should they be re
cognized as grounds challenging the evidence's legal sufficiencyand
its weight, as required by Tibbs v. Florida?
-1-
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
In Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), this Court had
authorized a two-pronged review of evidence utilizing Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979), when examining the legal sufficiency of the evi
dence, and Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct.. 2211 (1982), for review of
the weight of the evidence. This evidentiary standard of review has served the
State well for almsot fifteen years. However, in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 894-95 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010)(plurality op.), the; Court has now concluded
that the Supreme Court of the United States was incorrect in its Tibbs' deci
sion in which the Supreme Court had "explained the difference between reversals
based on evidentiary sufficiency ... and reversals based on evidentiary weight
(i:.'e,, factual-sufficiency)...." Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d at 899-900,.,n. 14
(citing Tibbs^ 457 U.S. at 38 n.ll, 102 S. Ct. 2211). Tibbs mandated that evi
dentiary sufficiency reviews were to be conducted under Jackson v. Virginia,
and that matters concerning the "weight of the evidence" were to be conducted
under a different standard of review. The long line of the Clewis line of cas
es calls into question the correctness of this Court's Brooks rationale and its
conclusion that now, both prongs of an evidence inquiry — its legal sufficien
cy and its weight — are to be reviewed Only under Jackson v. Virginia, instead
of the two-pronged review utilizing both, Jackson and Tibbs.
Why did the Supreme Court of the United States determine that the weight
of the evidence was to be reviewed under a different standard that reviews con
cerning the evidence's legal sufficiency? The due Process Clauses of the Texas
and United States constitutions requires that every criminal conviction is_to
be supported by evidence that a rational trier of fact could accept as being
sufficient to prove all of the elements of. the charged offense beyond a reason
able doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970); Fisher
v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298, 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993);;fsea also TEX. PENAL CODE
-2-
ANN. §2.01 (Vernon 2009); Ward v. State, 143 S.W.3d 271, 274 (Tex.App.-Waco__20-
04, pet. ref'd). Under the Due Process Clauses, the task of a reviewing court
is to consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,
and determine if any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasona
ble doubt, all of the essential elements of the offense. See Jackson v. Vir
ginia, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781; Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818 (Tex.
Crim.App. 2003); Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 389-90 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).
Reviewing courts are not fact-finders, the role of the courts is that of a Due
Process safeguard, ensuring';,; only the rationality of the trier of fact's find
ing of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). "If, based onall
the evidence, a reasonably minded jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable
doubt of the defendant's guilt, due process requires that we reverse and order
a judgment of acquittal." Fisher, 851 S.W.2d at 302 (quoting Narvalz v. State,
840 S.W.2d 415, 423 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); see also Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d
45, 49 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The sufficiency of the evidence is determined, from
the cumulative effect of all the evidence; each fact in isolation need not es
tablish the guilt of the accused. See.Alexander v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749, 758
^Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156, 164 (Tex.App.-Austin
2000, pet. ref'd). In analyzing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the
evidence, a reviewing court does not reevaluate, disregard, or weigh the evi
dence. See King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Rodriguez
v. State, 939 S.W.2d 211, 218 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.). The jury, as
*he trier;of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of
the weight to be given the testimony and may accept or reject all or any part
of a witness' testimony. See Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 919 (Tex.Crim.
App. 2000); Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Sharp v.
State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Williams v. SUte, 692 S.W.2d
671, 676 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The verdict may not be overturned unless it is
-3-
irrational or unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Matson v.
State, 819 S.W.2d 839, 846 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Ware v. State, 62 S.W.3d 344,
349 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd).
But a review to determine whether a jury accorded the correct and proper
weight to the evidence, in regard to a fact of consequence, is an entirely dif
ferent matter. This is because in some situations the jurors do not know what
weight is to be given to certain types or classes of evidence); and that is why
the Supreme Court had held that when matters concerning the evidentiary weight
arise (i.e., its factual sufficiency), the appellate court may be drawn into
questions .of reliability and credibility. See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. at 38
n.ll, 102 S. Ct. 2211. In evaluating all of the evidence, a court must consider
all of it, rightly or wrongly admitted, that the fact finder was permitted to
consider. See Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Dew
berry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Garcia v. State, 919
S.W.2d 370, 378 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.
Crim.App. 1993). The standard of review concerning the weight of the evidence
is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence. See Guevarra, 152 S.W.
3d at 49; Green v. State,.840 S.W.2d 394, 401 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). A jury may
not reasonably infer an ultimate fact from meager circumstantial evidence, none
more probable than another. See Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387,
392 (Tex. 1997). With regard to the weight of the evidence in circumstantial
evidence cases, one inference cannot be based upon another inference to reach a
conclusion or to sustain a conviction. See United States v. Schorr, 462 F.2d
953, 959 (5th Cir. 1972); Williamson v. State, 156 Tex. Crim. 520, 244 S.W.2d 202,
204 (1951); Lee v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 401, 214 S.W.2d 619, 622 (1948). The
stacking of one inference upon another is not considered to be evidence. Mara
thon, Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 728 (Tex. 2003); Citizens National. Bank
v. Allen Rae Investments, Inc., 142 S.W.3d 459, 482 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004,
no pet.Xopinion on reh'g). Proof that amounts to only a strong suspicion or a
-4-
mere probability of guilt is insufficient to sustain a conviction. See Urbano
v. State, 837 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); In re J.M.CD., 190 S.W. 3d
7,79, 781 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, no pet.); Hall v. State, 86 S.W.3d 235 (Tex.
App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref'd); Grant v. State, 989 S.W.2d 428, 433 (Tex.App.-
Houston [14th Dist.j 1999, no pet.). If circumstantial evidence provides noth
ing more than a suspicion, the jury is not permitted to reach a speculative
conclusion. See Louis v. State, 159 S.W.3d 236, 246 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2005,
pet. ref'd). The weight that is to be accorded evidence under the Tibbs' stan
dard is a question.of law that permits an inquiry into the evidence's factual
sufficiency. See .457 U.S. at 42, 102 S. Ct. 2211 (under a factual sufficiency
review, the reviewing court views the evidence in a "neutral light" where the
court is.not required to defer to the jury's credibility and'weight determina
tions).
If cases such as the foregoing are to be reviewed only for legal suffici
ency under Jackson v. Virginia only, then the chance is very great that there
will be an awful lot of defendants who will remain in prison because the Texas
justice system will have failed them where the jury had given great weight to
evidence that should have been accorded very little weight, or none at all, but
it was evidence that was legally sufficient under Jackson. An example of cases
in this category would be those in which DNA later proves the defendant was in
nocent of the crime; but he had been convicted, and his conviction affirmed on
appeal, because the evidence convicting him had been legally sufficient. If it
were not for Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are many that
would still be confined in prison, with the exception, that is, of those who
would have already been executed for a crime they had not committed. It is the
factual sufficiency standard that is the only means available to defendants for
which DNA testing is not an option or is unavailable. In these circumstances,
the courts have an affirmative duty — the conviction must be overturned and an
order of acquittal entered. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. at 41, 102 S.Ct. at 2218.
-5-
The Court of Criminal Appeals' Brooks holding is internally contradictory
and is inconsistent with, and contrary to, the Supreme Court's Tibbs holding.
First, the Brooks Court rationalizes that the legal-sufficiency standard of
Jackson is "indistinguishable" from the factual-sufficiency standard of Tibbs.
Brooks, 323 S-.W.3d at 901 (emphasis added).' But then, throughout the Brooks
opinion, the Court points out those very important areas of difference underly
ing the Supreme Court's reasons for holding that the fact-finders were not to
be accorded deference when reviewing the evidence's factual-sufficiency or its
weight. The Court of Criminal Appeals has essentially chunked binding Supreme
Court precedent into the toilet, and the Court's action should be reconsidered.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Criminal Appeals has discarded the factual sufficiency stan
dard that had been premised upon the Supreme Court's Tibbs v. Florida decision,
and has chosen to retain ONLY the Supreme Court's Jackson v. Virginia legal
sufficiency standard. So as to prevent any occurrences of manifest injustices,
i.e., incarcerating persons who are actually innocent, the Court should revisit
not only Brooks, but Clewis and its entire progeny of cases. After a thorough
analysis, this Court should determine that the factual-sufficiency, weight-of-
the-evidence standard, should be' restored.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Petitioner Jamarios Canton prays this Honorable Court will conclude that
it was error for the factual sufficiency, weight-of-the-evidence, standard.not
to be applied by the Court of Appeals when reviewing his case, as required_by
justice; and will order that the issue be briefed and submitted to the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Alternatively, the Court should find it appropriate to dis
pose of this case by sending it back to the Court of Appeals to reconsider the
factual sufficiency question under a proper application of the Tibbs v. Florida
standard.
Respectfully submitted,
-f>-
&/IARIOS L. CANTON, Petitioner
*6bertson Unit, TDCJ No. 1771951
12071 FM 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
VERIFICATION BY UNSWORN DECLARATION
I, Jamarios L. Canton, TDCJ-CID No. 1771951, being presently incarcerated
at the Robertson Unit of the Correctional Insitutions Division of the Texas De
partment of Criminal Justice, located in Jones County, Texas, declares under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED on this, the TWENTY-FIRST day of MARCH, 2013.
\AjA**arJ>JJnL/ (yd"^jertrJ
JAMARIOS L. CANTON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jamarios L. Canton, Petitioner pro se, do hereby certify that a true
and correct carbon copy of the above and foregoing PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW, has been served on the following individuals by regular U.S. Postal
Service first class mail, by depositing same enclosed in a postpaid, properly
addressed wrapper, into the prison's internal Legal Mail System, under the Pri
son Mailbox Rule, on the TWENTY-SECOND day of MARCH, 2013, addressed to:
Ms. Nicole Lostracco, Esq.
Nacogdoches County District Attorney s Office
Nacogdoches County Courthouse
101 West Main Street, Suite 250
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
And to:
State Prosecuting Attorney
Court of Criminal Appeals Building
P.O. Box 12405 -- Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2405
JAMARIOS L. CANTON
-7-
A P ? E N D I X
-8-
NO. 12-12-00118-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS .
JAMARIOS LECHRISTOPHER CANTON, § APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT
v> § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jamarios LeChristopher Canton appeals his conviction for aggravated as
sault with a deadly weapon. In his sole issue on appeal, he alleges that the
evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the iury's guilty
verdict, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2012, in the early morning hours, the Nacogdoches Police
Department (NPD) received a911 call from awoman who said that she had been
stabbed and that the assault occurred in the 1000 block of First Street in Nac
ogdoches, Texas. Several officers from the NPD, including Corporal Charles
Cain, responded and located awoman on the ground lying in apool of blood. The
victim, Tone Curl, appeared to be fading in and out of consciousness. When she
was asked who had "done this," she responded with the name "Chris/1 Police lo
cated the handle to aknife on the ground near the victim. After the victim
was rolled over, the police found the blade to the knife underneath where she
had been laying.
During the investigation. Corporal Cain received information from Appel
lant's mother, saying that he was in anearby housing project.and that, accord
ing to Corporal Cain, Appellant said
he was "waiting there for officers to come and kill him basically." From a
separate caller, NPD received information that Appellant was obtaining a ride
back to the scene. When Appellant arrived, they noticed that he appeared to be
under the influence of a narcotic, that he was aggressive, and that he was un
able to answer any questions. The officers visually observed that Appellant's
clothes and shoes were covered, in blood, and that his hands were "caked" in
blood, but he did not appear to have any wounds himself. Since he was not co
operative, could not answer questions, and did not appear to understand his
rights as they were read to him, the police arrested him based on their obser
vations. While the police were making the arrest., Appellant voluntarily said
bo the officers, "Made me do it." Appellant was later charged and indicted for
the offense, which was enhanced due to a prior offense he had committed.
Darren Martin is a twenty-three year old family friend of Appellant and
his mother who often stayed overnight at the home. Martin testified that he
and Appellant were at the home of Appellant's mother on the night of the as
sault. Curl, an acquaintance of Appellant's mother, went to the home to dis
cuss whether Appellant's mother knew the whereabouts of the mother's sister,
who was Curl's close friend.1 Martin told Curl that Appellant's mother was not
home and he thought Curl left. Martin testified that Appellant was no longer
in the living room at that point, but that he believed he was still inside the
home. Martin went to another room, and when he came back, he could see,
through the screen door, that Appellant was outside sitting or standing next to
the victim as she lay moaning on the ground. Martin stated that he was scared
and in shock. Appellant entered the home, grabbed Martin, and held him on his
lap, saying that he "wasn't going to go down for this, like, by his self."
Martin's uncle, Cory Flemon, who also knew Appellant, testified that he
happened to be driving by the scene when he saw Appellant making stabbing mo
tions, and kicking and stomping on something. Flemon testified that Appellant
looked up, saw him, and then ran into the home. Flemon, who was concerned for
his nephew's safety, exited the car and gave chase. He entered just as Appel- .
Curl testified that she had never met Appellant.
lant indicated that he would not be "going down" for this by himself. Flemon
grabbed'Martin, and told him to leave and call 911. Martin left to find Appel
lant's mother, but never called 911. Flemon also left, but did not call 911
because he was afraid that he would be falsely accused of the crime due to his
own criminal history. Although she did not know Appellant, the victim testi
fied that as she was being attacked, she learned the name of her assailant be
cause she heard the peron later identified as Martin saying, ''Stop it, Chris.
Stop it." A Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) DNA analyst testified that
she tested blood samples found on Appellant's clothes and shoes, which showed
that the blood belonged to Curl.
The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense, and the enhancement to be
true, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment, for life. This appeal followed.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support the jury's guilty verdict because the State failed to prove that he was
the perpetrator of the assault on Curl.^
Standard of Review t
Under the single sufficiency standard, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson V. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560
(1979); see also Brooki V. StatO, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). We
defer to the trier of fact's responsibility to resolve conflicts in testimony,
weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate
facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at. 2789. "A court faced with a re
cord of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—
2 Appellant invokes both legal and factual sufficiency review of the evidence. The lexas
Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the legal sufficiency standard enunciated in Jb&soi v.
VUxWfl, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Si. 2d (1979), is the oily standard a reviewing court
drxild apply in determinire vhether the evidence is sufficient to support each elflrentof a crimi
nal offense that the state is required to prove beyund a reasonable doubt. See aooics v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 894-95 (Tex.Crim.Acp. 2010)(plurality op.). Vfe will review the evidence under the
Jackson standard. _-,
even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact
resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution...." Id., 443 U.S. at
326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793. Appellate courts do not reevaluate the weight and cred
ibility of the evidence; they only ensure that the iury reached a rational de
cision. Laster V. State, 265 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).
Eech fact need not scint directlv and independently to the guilt of the
appellant, as lone as the cumulative force of all'the incriminating circumstan
ces is sufficient to support the conviction. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evi
dence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone
can be sufficient to establish guilt. Id.
Applicable Law
A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly causes serious bodily iniury to another or uses or exhibits a
deadly weapon during the commission of the assault. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§
22.01(a)(1), 22.02(a) (West .2011). The state is required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who committed the crime char
ged. JohtlSon V. State, 673 S.W.2d 190, 196 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The identity
of a perpetrator in an assault case may be proven by either direct or circum
stantial evidence. See EarIs V. State, 707 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)
(en banc). The -jury may use its common knowledge and experience to make infer
ences in determining whether the evidence establishes the defendant as the per
petrator of the alleged crime. See Roberson V. State, 16 S.W.3d 156, 167 (Tex.
App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd)("[l]dentity may be proven by inferences."); Clark
V. State, 47 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.)(same) Jones V.
State, 900 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ ref'd)(explaining
that the jury may use common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and
experience gained in ordinary affairs of life when giving effect to inferences
that may reasonably be drawn from evidence). It is up to the fact finder to
decide which inferences is most reasonable. Laster, 275 S.W.3d at 523; Hooper,
214 S.W.3d at i4. '
-4-
"When there is no direct evidence of the perpetrator's identity elicited
from trial witnesses, no formalized procedure is required for the State to
prove the identity of the accused." Clark, 47 S.W.3d at 214. Moreover, circum
stantial evidence is not subject to a more rigorous standard of review than di
rect evidence, and "[f]or purposes of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative." Id.
Discussion
Appellant argues that the victim never specifically identified his as her
assailant, and that there were other men named "Chris" who could have been the
assailant but were never investigated. He also contends that Martin's testimony
is inconsistent with the victim's testimony and should be discredited. Moreover
he argues that Martin and Flemon behaved suspiciously by fleeing the scene and
failing to call 911.
First, the victim is not required to make a positive identification of
the defendant as the perpetrator of the alleged offense so long as other direct
or circumstantial evidence of his identity exists. See Gardner V. State, 306
S.W.3d 274. 285 (Tex.Crim.Ann. 2009)(noting that eyewitness testimony implica
ting the defendant is not necessarily required to support a conviction).
Next. Detective Scott Weems testified that the police had been made aware
of other individuals named Chris who were associated with the house, but the
police remained focused on Appellant, and never investigated the information.
This was because the Appellant, who went by the name of "Chris," arrived at the
scene with blood all over him, acting aggressively, and said, "Made me do it."
Additionally, Detective Weems testified that Martin never mentioned Cory Fle
mon 's presence at the scene that night to law enforcement. Moreover, no blood
was discovered on Martin or on any of the furniture inside the residence, even
though Appellant went back inside the home after the attack. Appellant contends
that since there was blood on his clothes, shoes, and hands, there should have
been a transfer pattern inside the home or on the couch where he held Martin.
Appellant infers from the absence of blood, coupled with their failure to call
911, that Martin and Flemon must not be telling the truth. Appellant contends
-5-
that the blood evidence was iust as consistent with the theory that he attemp
ted to aid the victim, and that the person saying "Stop it, Chris," was the ac
tual assailant, who said those words to Appellant as he tried to help the vic
tim. As we have stated, it is for the iury to resolve conflicts in testimony,
weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Jackson, 443
U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. Therefore, it was for the jury to decide whether
Martin's and Flemon's testimony was credible, whether they took part in the as
sault, and what weight should be attributed to the police's alleged failure to
investigate other individuals named Chris who may have had a connection to the
assault.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the iury's verdict,
the evidence shows that Appellant returned to the scene shortly after police
arrived. His clothes were covered in Curl's blood. The victim stated that she
overheard Martin say that a man named "Chris" was her assailant. Appellant goes
by the name of "Chris." While detained by police. Appellant, who appeared to be
under the influence of narcotics, said, "Made me do it." Martin and Flemon both
testified that Appellant said he "wasn't going down for this" by himself. Fle
mon testified that he observed Appellant making stabbing motions in the front
yard. Martin stated that he saw Appellant standing or sitting beside the victim
and he knew something terrible had iust occurred. In fact, the testimonies of-
Martin and Flemon were largely consistent. Bsed on this evidence, the iury
could have reasonabvly concluded that Appellant was the perpetrator of the as
sault against Curl. Consequently, the evidence is sufficient to support the iu
ry's finding of guilt.
Appellant's sole issue is overruled.
DISPOSITION
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the Judgment of the
trial court.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered December 20, 2012.
Banel consistedof Wbrthai. C.J.. Griffith, J., ad Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
-6-
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDO MINT
DECEMBER 20, 2012
NO. 12-12-00118-CR
JAMARIOS LECHRISTOPHER CANTON,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 145th Judicial District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F1017409)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs
filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court
that there was no error in the iudgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED.and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certi
fied to the court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
fenel consisted of Ubrthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.