Felix Guillory v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00359-CR
__________________
FELIX GUILLORY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 128th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. A170559-R
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Felix Guillory for “intentionally or
knowingly caus[ing] the death of . . . Shane Cooper, by cutting and stabbing [him]
with a knife or other sharp instrument[.]” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1).
Guillory pleaded “not guilty,” and a jury found Guillory guilty of murder. The trial
court assessed punishment at sixty years of prison. Guillory timely appealed. In one
appellate issue, Guillory challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction. We affirm.
1
Evidence at Trial
On March 24, 2016, around 2:30 a.m., law enforcement received a call about
a disturbance in the city of Orange on North Street and arrived to find a deceased
white male covered in blood, lying on the ground near the passenger side of a
Chevrolet Blazer. The deceased, later identified as Shane Cooper, had several
apparent lacerations to his neck and appeared to have been in a fight. On the roadway
behind the vehicle, the officers observed what appeared to be a silver wedding band,
which Shane’s wife later identified as Shane’s silver wedding ring. The interior of
the vehicle had a large amount of blood in it, and the officers found a pocketknife
inside the vehicle near the center console. Blood samples were received and
analyzed by analysts with the DPS crime lab from the silver wedding ring and the
pocketknife discovered inside the victim’s vehicle. The DNA analysis showed two
contributors: Shane Cooper and Felix Guillory. The cause of death was multiple stab
and incised wounds.
Testimony of Officer Isaac Henry
Officer Isaac Henry with the City of Orange Police Department testified that
he was on patrol in Orange County on March 24, 2016, and he was dispatched around
2:30 a.m. to the 600 block of North Street for a disturbance call. According to Officer
Henry, when he and the other officers arrived, there was a black Chevrolet Blazer
parked in the 500 block of North Street with its engine off, headlights illuminated,
2
with the driver’s side door open. On the passenger side of the vehicle, they observed
a deceased white male, later identified as Shane Cooper, lying face down with a large
amount of blood on and around his body. Officer Henry testified that while he was
waiting for first responders to arrive, he observed a glass jar with blood on it on the
ground near the rear driver’s side of the vehicle under the driver’s side open door
and a silver ring on the ground a couple of feet from the rear of the vehicle. Officer
Henry testified that “[t]here was a lot of blood throughout the vehicle” and blood
was on the ground underneath the vehicle and on the vehicle’s driver’s side
doorframe. According to Officer Henry, the vehicle was an easily recognizable older
model Blazer, and he had seen Shane in it previously. A twenty-dollar bill, a wrench,
and Shane’s wallet were retrieved from his pockets. Photographs of the scene were
admitted into evidence and published to the jury.
Testimony of Captain Weldon Smith
Patrol Captain Weldon Smith with the City of Orange Police Department
testified that on that morning the responding officers requested his assistance once
on the scene and he arrived around five minutes later. According to Captain Smith,
he saw Mr. Bowens, who had called 911, across the street at the door of his
residence. Shane, the deceased, was lying face down on the ground near the Blazer.
According to Smith, it appeared that the incident had transpired within a few minutes
of his arrival, and he agreed that it appeared as if maybe someone left the body and
3
just ran off. Captain Smith testified that he notified the Homicide Investigation Team
to respond and help at the scene and notified the justice of the peace. Captain Smith
testified he had the vehicle taken to the police department and had dispatch call area
emergency rooms because there was a large amount of blood on the scene and
someone else could have been involved and sought medical care.
Testimony of Detective Howard DeVault
Detective Sergeant Howard DeVault with the City of Orange Police
Department testified that he was dispatched to the scene for a homicide. DeVault
testified that when he arrived, Lieutenant Ashworth was in charge and advised
DeVault that the vehicle at the scene was going to be taken to the police station and
DeVault was to follow the vehicle until it arrived at the secured area. According to
DeVault, from the time he arrived at the scene until the vehicle was placed in the
secured area, the vehicle was not tampered with.
DeVault testified he was also present with other officers who conducted
interviews in connection with the case. One of those interviews was with Quincy
Solomon at Quincy’s house, and that is when a folding knife with approximately a
two-and-a-half-inch blade was located and placed into evidence. DeVault testified
he did not assist with the interview and that he did not know whether the knife was
sent to the crime lab.
4
Testimony of Sergeant Kelly Griffin
Sergeant Kelly Griffin with the City of Orange Police Department was
dispatched to the scene, marked evidence, and took measurements and photographs
at the scene. Griffin collected a man’s silver ring, sealed it in an evidence bag,
transported it to the property room at the police station, and it was sent off for testing.
A mason jar was also collected from the scene, but law enforcement was unable to
successfully obtain fingerprints from it. A hat and a screwdriver were also located at
the scene.
Sergeant Griffin picked up a blood spot card from Shane’s autopsy that was
prepared by the coroner for purposes of matching DNA and transported it to the City
of Orange Police Department and then to the Jefferson County crime lab. Sergeant
Griffin swabbed a puddle of blood beside the truck and blood from the inside of the
driver’s door, and the inside and outside of the passenger door.
Testimony of Detective Joseph Steele
Detective Joseph Steele with the City of Orange Police Department was
dispatched to the scene to assist in the investigation and became the lead detective
on the case. Steele testified that when he arrived, he observed a deceased white male,
identified as Shane Cooper, covered in blood and with a “bunch of injuries[]” and
“apparent lacerations to his neck.” Steele testified that he knew Shane prior to seeing
him at the scene, and that a baseball cap recovered at the scene was a hat or cap that
5
Steele recognized because he had seen Shane wearing it prior to that day. According
to Steele, there was blood inside the Chevrolet Blazer at the scene and blood splatter
“thrown everywhere[,]” included on some garbage cans nearby, and “it looked like
[Shane] had been in a fight.” Steele testified that in his opinion based on his
observations of the scene, a fight started inside the vehicle, and the “bad, horrific
fight [] continued down the road until that vehicle stopped[,] and[] then[] Shane
Cooper and Mr. Guillory got out and continued to fight outside of that vehicle until
Shane bled out and died.” Detective Steele explained that based on statements he
took and blood on the doorsill he believed Shane was driving, and based on the lack
of blood splatter between where the hat was recovered and where the car ended up,
he believed Shane’s hat was knocked out while he was sitting in the car with the
windows down, the fight started inside the vehicle, and the fight continued while the
vehicle continued to the place it was found at the scene. According to Detective
Steele, there was blood outside of the driver’s side of the vehicle because he believed
Shane got out to continue to defend himself and was already bleeding, and there was
blood on the inside of the passenger side because “if he’s bleeding bad enough and
he’s fighting with the passenger, there’s probably blood going both ways.” Detective
Steele agreed that one possibility explaining the pool of blood on the inside of the
passenger side was that after Shane was killed the suspect tried to put him on the
passenger side to transport him and drive off but was physically unable to or could
6
not do it before law enforcement arrived. Detective Steele also agreed that with the
number of lacerations on Shane’s neck and the kind of injuries he sustained he could
not have fought anybody for any significant amount of time.
Detective Steele testified that the investigation took about eighteen months to
complete and approximately seven to twelve people were interviewed. Detective
Steele explained at trial that interviewing people enabled law enforcement to
establish a timeline for Shane that night and who he was with. Detective Steele
testified that he spoke to people who had seen Shane with Felix Guillory shortly
before his death. Detective Steele testified that he spoke with Deanna Cooper,
Lawrence Brooks, Felix Guillory, James Guillory, Evelyn Mayorga, Virgie
Melancon, and Romon Jones. According to Detective Steele, the information from
the interviews and the DPS crime lab results from testing of evidence from the scene
led Detective Steele to believe that Felix Guillory was involved in Shane’s murder.
Although Detective Steele acknowledged that it was possible that more than one
person was involved in Shane’s murder, Detective Steele testified he had no reliable
evidence in this case that put anyone at the murder scene other than Felix Guillory
and Shane Cooper.
Detective Steele acknowledged that initially the suspect was Quincy
Solomon, but he was later eliminated as a suspect when law enforcement confirmed
what Quincy had told them. Detective Steele testified that when Guillory came in to
7
give a statement on March 25, “there [were] a lot of inconsistencies with the
statement [and] [t]hat kind of pointed [law enforcement] towards his direction.” Two
knives were recovered in the case—one from Quincy Solomon that did not have
blood on it, and one that was recovered from the vehicle that had blood on it.
Detective Steele testified that only the knife at the scene was sent for analysis
because there was nothing to lead him to believe that Quincy’s knife had been used
in the murder with the amount of blood found at the scene, and it was safe to assume
that the knife from the vehicle with blood on it could provide valuable evidence.
Testimony of John William Ralston
John Ralston, a forensic pathologist, testified he performed the autopsy on
Shane. Ralston testified that the cause of Shane’s death was “multiple stab and
incised wounds[,]” his death was a homicide inflicted by another person, and he
suffered at least twenty-eight stab wounds from a single-edged knife or a sharp
instrument. Ralston described at trial the cut or stab wounds to Shane’s head, face,
chest, arms, back, hand, and neck. Ralston acknowledged that it was possible that
the wounds could have been caused by multiple sharp instruments or knives, and he
could not say for certain that only one knife was used. According to Ralston,
[m]ultiple stab wounds overtime even if they don’t hit anything vital
can cause a person to have blood loss and shock, but the most terminal
injuries in this case were the wounds to the neck, which severed the
carotid artery on one side and the jugulars on both sides.
8
Ralston also noted that Shane had an oval bite mark on his left upper back. Ralston
testified that as part of the autopsy a toxicology test was performed on Shane, and
the testing came back positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, which is a
metabolite or a breakdown product of methamphetamine.
Testimony of Detective Jason Laughlin
Detective Jason Laughlin with the City of Orange Police Department testified
that he assisted with the investigation and interviewed witnesses. Detective Laughlin
testified he spoke with Romon Jones, Quincy Solomon, and Felix Guillory.
According to Detective Laughlin, on March 25, 2016, he and Detective Hilyar
located Felix Guillory at his home and asked if he would come to the police station
and talk with the detectives. Felix Guillory agreed to ride with the detectives to the
police station where he was interviewed. According to Detective Laughlin, Felix
was not in custody, and he was there voluntarily. The recorded interview was
admitted into evidence and published to the jury.
Detective Laughlin testified that he instantly noticed when he encountered
Felix Guillory that he had an abrasion on his nose and upper eye. Detective Laughlin
testified that the injuries were to the right side of Felix’s face and that his right eye
appeared swollen. Felix also had a cut finger and when Felix removed his shirt,
Detective Laughlin observed on the right side of Felix’s body a puncture wound on
his chest and a “claw scrape mark” underneath his chest. According to Detective
9
Laughlin, the fact that Felix’s injuries were on the right side of his body was
significant because Detective Laughlin had discovered that Shane was left-handed.
Photographs Detective Laughlin took of Felix’s injuries were admitted into
evidence.
Detective Laughlin testified that to appease Felix while they waited for Chief
Investigator Breshears to join them for the interview, he gave Felix a cold bottle of
water. According to Detective Laughlin, Felix drank the water and no one else
touched the bottle until Detective Hilyar seized the bottle as evidence, as instructed
by Laughlin, to obtain possible DNA.
Detective Laughlin testified that law enforcement recovered Shane’s phone
and that Quincy had taken it and sold it to someone else. According to Detective
Laughlin, Quincy appeared “[h]ighly intoxicated” when he came in to speak to
Laughlin. Quincy’s version of what happened that night was similar to what Felix
had stated during the interview. Detective Laughlin testified that there was a small
window of time in which Shane was killed, Laughlin checked the whereabouts of
Quincy on the night of the murder through other witnesses, and Laughlin did not
think Quincy was present when Shane was killed. Detective Laughlin testified he
also spoke briefly to Romon Jones and did not find his testimony to be credible.
10
Video Recording of Interview of Felix Guillory
The video recording of the interview of Felix Guillory was admitted into
evidence and played for the jury. In the interview, Felix admitted being with Shane
on the evening Shane was killed. Felix stated that Shane was like a brother, and that
Shane dropped him off at home late that night, Felix went to sleep, and that was the
last time he spoke to or saw Shane. Felix stated that Quincy had taken Shane’s phone.
He denied having an altercation with Shane or knowing what happened to Shane that
night. He stated he did not have a recent fight but only that he had “boxed with
someone” the day before but would not name who he boxed with. At law
enforcement’s request, Felix gave the interviewing officers his shoes and they took
photographs of his injuries. During the interview, Felix drank from a water bottle
given to him by law enforcement.
Testimony of Deanna Cooper
Deanna Cooper, Shane’s wife of about eight years, testified that on March 24,
2016, she and Shane were living with friends after their house flooded. Deanna
explained that at the time neither she nor Shane were working, and Shane would do
odd jobs and buy and sell things to make money. According to Deanna, on the night
before Shane’s murder, Shane was helping friends move and stopped by where he
and Deanna were living around 11:45 p.m. before leaving again to continue to help
11
his friends move. Deanna testified that Shane was driving his Chevy Blazer that
night, and she never heard from him again after he stopped by the house.
Deanna testified that she tried to call Shane’s cell phone all night and when
she tried to call him about 3 a.m., the call went to voicemail, so she hung up. At
some point, someone called her from Shane’s number and Deanna answered.
Deanna testified that the caller asked for Shane, and she responded, “This is his
phone.” She testified that she “kind of[]” recognized the caller’s voice as Quincy
Solomon but Shane did not hang out with him much and she had only been around
Quincy a couple of times. She testified that she knew something was wrong when
detectives showed up at the house where she was staying and came in and got her.
Deanna testified that she did not know Felix Guillory and had only seen him
one time for a couple of minutes. To her knowledge, Shane and Felix never hung
out together and were not friends. According to Deanna, two of Shane’s good friends
were Albert Solomon, whom she believed was Quincy’s cousin, and Lawrence
Brooks. Deanna testified that Lawrence got along well with her and Shane, and he
sometimes brought them food, even if Shane was not there. Deanna testified that
Shane used his phone to run his business and would not have sold it.
Deanna testified that Shane was wearing a ring he wore as his wedding ring
the last time she saw him and when showed the ring collected from the scene, she
identified it as the ring Shane was wearing the night of the murder. When she last
12
saw him, he did not have any bite marks, cuts, or stab wounds on his body. Deanna
testified that Shane was left-handed.
Deanna acknowledged that about a year before Shane died, he started using
methamphetamines and selling drugs. She knew Shane was out selling drugs and
knew who he was associating with, but she did not go with him and “didn’t put
[herself] in that position.” She informed law enforcement that someone called “Po
Daddy” had “a beef” with or vendetta against Shane about drugs. She testified that
she had met James Guillory a couple of times and that Shane sold drugs to James
Guillory and knew him well.
According to Deanna, when the detectives came to the house where she was
living on the night of the murder, they asked to speak to the man she and Shane were
living with, Deanna went inside to get him, but law enforcement ultimately had to
use a sledgehammer to get into the house. She was taken to the police station with
the man and woman they were living with. Deanna testified she provided two written
statements to law enforcement. She agreed that in one of the statements she stated
that Quincy called from Shane’s phone about 5 a.m.
Testimony of James Lewis Guillory
James Lewis Guillory testified that Shane was a good friend and “one of the
best people [he] kn[e]w.” James testified he also knew Felix Guillory well and they
were “business associates on a lot of levels[]” and that he and Felix had had prior
13
“run ins” with each other that “didn’t turn out too good” for James. According to
James, on the night Shane died he saw Shane about 1:15 or 1:30 a.m. with Felix.
James testified that Felix was beating on his front door and on the side of James’s
house to wake him up while Shane was in the driveway in his Blazer, but James was
hesitant to open the door because a couple of weeks before Felix and some people
“roughed [him] up” to collect a debt. Once Felix assured James that he was not going
to harm him, James opened the door and went out to talk to Shane, and Felix and
Shane stayed twenty or thirty minutes. According to James, Felix seemed calm, but
Shane seemed “real nervous, scared almost” and Shane asked James several times if
he would ride with them because he needed his help with something. James testified
that he did not go, and Felix and Shane left about 1:45 or 2:00 a.m.
James testified that about ten minutes later Quincy Solomon, who James said
was like a brother to him, came by on his bicycle to “hang out and chill.” James
testified that Quincy had stolen Shane’s phone and wanted James to sell it for him.
According to James, he knew Shane was looking for his phone, so he gave Quincy
money for it and told him that he was going to give it back to Shane the next day.
James testified that they “g[ot] high” and that he got the phone for a little while, but
Quincy stole it back and left about 6 a.m. James admitted he had prior convictions
for forgery and burglary of a building.
14
Testimony of Lawrence Brooks
Lawrence Brooks testified that he and Shane had been friends for about fifteen
years, they would see each other about every other day, and they would do jobs
together to support their families. According to Brooks, on the night of Shane’s
murder Shane came to Brooks’s house around 10 p.m. and was acting normal.
Brooks testified that Shane wanted to buy a stereo for his vehicle from Brooks for
$60 but only had $20. Shane gave Brooks $20 and told him he would leave and get
him $40 and be back in forty-five minutes or an hour. When he did not come back,
Brooks called Shane’s cell phone twice and Shane said he was coming. When he
still did not show up, Brooks called Shane’s cell phone again, but Quincy Solomon
answered and said he had Shane’s phone because he owed him some money.
According to Brooks, this raised a red flag because Shane would not have sold or
traded his phone for money because he needed it to contact people.
Brooks testified that he and his fiancé went to look for Shane at the house
where he had been living, and around 1 a.m. they saw his Blazer coming towards
them at 8th and Cordrey in front of North school. Brooks stopped at the stop sign,
and Shane pulled up alongside Brooks. Shane was driving with Felix in the
passenger’s seat, and Shane told Brooks that he did not have his phone. Brooks
testified that he had known Felix for years and he had seen Felix and Shane together.
Brooks asked Shane why he was with Felix, Shane said he was dropping Felix off
15
around the corner and then coming to Brooks’s house, and Shane handed Brooks
$20 and said he would bring him $20 more later. According to Brooks, it worried
him at the time to see Shane with Felix “[b]ecause it’s just a whole bunch of riffraff
was going around about Shane was a snitch and they was out to get him . . . not
specifically Feli[x] was going have to get him but [] he was just worried at that time
that he was going to be gotten[.]” Brooks volunteered to give Felix a ride or to follow
Shane to drop Felix off, but Shane told Brooks to go ahead and go home. The next
morning and after Shane did not show up, Brooks and his fiancé went to the house
where Shane and his wife were staying but no one was home. At a nearby store, they
saw the vehicle of the person with whom Shane had been living parked, and Brooks
went in and learned that Shane had been killed the night before. Brooks testified he
had a conviction for burglary and a conviction for misdemeanor theft.
Testimony of Evelyn Mayorga
Mayorga testified that she was friends with Shane and best friends with Felix.
According to Mayorga, she saw Felix at her residence a little after daylight on the
morning of March 24, 2016. Mayorga testified that Felix appeared “dishevel[]ed”
that morning, looked like he had been fighting, and had blood on his shirt and shoes.
Mayorga testified that there was enough blood on the shirt that it was unsalvageable
and that it did not look like the blood came from Felix. She testified that when he
took off his shirt, she noticed a fresh scratch and his right eye looked a little swollen.
16
When she asked about his face, he told her he had been moving his bedroom
furniture and his bedpost fell on him. She told him she did not believe him and asked
him what happened. Mayorga testified that he later changed his story and said that
he “was sparring with Po.” Mayorga testified that did not seem right to her and that
while Felix stayed with her until the next day, he was “very quiet[,]” which was not
normal for Felix. Mayorga testified she last saw Shane two or three days before he
died. Mayorga admitted she had more than four felony convictions for possession of
a controlled substance.
Testimony of Virgie Melancon
Virgie Melancon testified she had known Felix for a long time, and she saw
him around 2 a.m. on the morning of March 24, 2016. According to Melancon, her
dog barked and woke her up, and she saw Felix walking fast across her property and
headed toward North school. She testified that Felix always walked through her
property, and she had told him not to because her kids would get scared. She testified
that she did not know that Shane Cooper had been murdered on North Street.
According to Melancon, an officer knocked on her door because he had been told
she saw someone walk through her yard, and she gave a statement to the officer.
Melancon said regardless of what the statement said, she told the officer she saw
Felix around 2 a.m., not 6 a.m. that morning.
17
Testimony of Stephen Ward
Detective Stephen Ward with the City of Orange Police Department testified
that on June 15, 2017, he attempted to serve a search warrant on Felix Guillory for
a controlled buccal swab for DNA. According to Detective Ward, while attempting
to serve the warrant, Felix “didn’t want anything to do with us[]” and “was very
agitated with us.” Detective Ward testified that Felix was extremely upset and told
Ward that they already had his DNA, and it took Ward quite a bit of effort to get the
buccal swab. Detective Ward sealed the buccal swab in a box and put the box in a
bag to bring to the police department for later transport to the crime lab.
Testimony of Memling Altamirano
Memling Altamirano, a forensic scientist at the Jefferson County Regional
Crime Lab, testified that on March 24, 2016, her agency received a call around 4:30
a.m. for help from the City of Orange Police Department in processing a vehicle.
Altamirano went to their police station to perform forensic analysis on the vehicle.
Altamirano testified that a pocketknife was recovered from the front center console
floorboard. Altamirano put the knife in a sealed container and then a detective took
it for DNA testing.
Testimony of Amanda Balasko
Amanda Balasko, a forensic scientist with the DPS crime lab in Houston,
testified that two stains were obtained from the ring recovered from the scene, and
18
it tested positive for blood, and she prepared those stains for DNA analysis. Three
stains were obtained from the pocketknife recovered from the vehicle, which also
tested positive for blood and Balasko prepared those stains for DNA analysis. The
tip of a screwdriver collected from the scene tested negative for blood. The swabs of
the bite marks from Shane Cooper tested positive for blood, and Balasko prepared
the swabs for DNA analysis. Balasko testified that she swabbed the mouth of the
water bottle that the police collected from Guillory, and she submitted the water
bottle and the buccal swab taken from Guillory’s mouth for DNA analysis. Balasko
testified that due to the number of cases received daily for scientific analysis, the
crime lab has limits on the number of items than can be submitted for testing, based
on the type of offense and the situation.
Testimony of Jessica Ehmann
Jessica Ehmann, a forensic scientist in the DNA section of the DPS crime lab
in Houston, testified that the DNA profile she obtained from the pocketknife blade
was a mixture of two individuals. Ehmann testified as follows regarding her
comparison of the DNA extracted from the pocketknife blade obtained from the
vehicle and the DNA extracted from the swab taken from the water bottle from
which Guillory drank:
Assuming Felix Guillory is the source of the water bottle swab,
obtaining this mixture profile is 19.1 sextillion times more likely if the
DNA came from Felix Guillory and one unknown individual than if the
DNA came from two unrelated, unknown individuals.
19
Based on the likelihood ratio results, Shane Cooper and Felix
Guillory cannot be excluded as possible contributors to the profile.
Ehmann explained that a sextillion is “a 1 followed by 21 zeros[]” and that it is 19.1
sextillion times more likely for her to get the profile she got from the swab from the
stain on the pocketknife blade if the individual that contributed to the profile from
the water bottle was a part of that mixture on the pocketknife blade than not. Ehmann
testified that when she compared the DNA profile from the same swab of the stain
on the pocketknife blade with the DNA profile from Guillory’s buccal swab (as an
alternate known sample to the swab from the water bottle), the sample numbers did
not change.
According to Ehmann, obtaining the DNA mixture of two individuals from
the swab of the stain on the pocketknife handle
was 455 quadrillion times more likely if the DNA came from Shane
Cooper and one unknown individual than if the DNA came from two
unrelated, unknown individuals.
Obtaining this mixture profile is 130 billion times more likely if
the DNA came from Felix Guillory and one unknown individual than
if the DNA came from two unrelated, unknown individuals.
Based on the likelihood ratio results, Shane Cooper and Felix
Guillory cannot be excluded as possible contributors to the profile.
Ehmann testified that comparable results occurred when she tested the swab of the
stain on the handle of the pocketknife in comparison with the alternate known sample
for Felix Guillory.
20
Ehmann also testified about the DNA analysis results of the swab of the
outside of Shane Cooper’s ring with both the swab from the water bottle from which
Felix Guillory drank and his buccal swab:
The DNA profile from [Shane’s ring] is interpreted as a mixture
of two individuals, with Shane Cooper as an assumed contributor.
Assuming Felix Guillory is the source of the water bottle swab,
obtaining this mixture profile is 87.6 sextillion times more likely if the
DNA came from Shane Cooper and Felix Guillory than if the DNA
came from Shane Cooper and one unrelated, unknown individual.
Based on the likelihood ratio result, Shane Cooper and Felix
Guillory cannot be excluded as possible contributors to the profile.
....
Obtaining this mixture profile [for the swab of Shane’s ring
compared to Felix Guillory’s buccal swab] is 92.2 sextillion times more
likely if the DNA came from Shane Cooper and Felix Guillory than if
the DNA came from Shane Cooper and one unrelated, unknown
individual.
Based on the likelihood ratio result, Felix Guillory cannot be
excluded as a possible contributor to the profile.
....
. . . So, it’s very comparable numbers. I know 5 sextillion sounds
like a really big difference but, it’s -- we’re still talking in the tens of
sextillions range. So, it’s relatively a small difference in the statistics
that were generated from the two different comparisons.
Ehmann agreed that she had the blood card from Shane’s autopsy, and when she
tested the ring, she double-checked the profile itself to make sure that the profile
matched the blood card.
21
According to Ehmann, she also compared the DNA profiles found on the
pocketknife blade, pocketknife handle, and Shane’s ring each to a known DNA
sample from Quincy Solomon, and Quincy Solomon was excluded as a contributor
to each of those profiles.
The defense did not offer any witnesses or admit any evidence at trial.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In one issue, Appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the conviction. According to Appellant, “[n]o rational finder of fact could
have found that it was Appellant’s intentional or knowing actions that proximately
caused the death of Shane Cooper.” Appellant argues that there is insufficient
evidence to support the jury’s findings that Appellant caused Shane’s death and that
there is insufficient evidence that Appellant acted with the requisite mens rea.
Appellant contends that even if the DNA evidence is believed, it “simply proves
Appellant was present with [Shane] and nothing more.”
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
22
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 favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 899 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007). While a jury is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence, it is not permitted to draw conclusions based on speculation or factually
unsupported inferences or presumptions. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15. 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 Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing
Febus v. State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Heiselbetz v. State,
906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)). The appellate court does not reweigh
the evidence or 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).
We “‘determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon
the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict.’” Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778 (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d
at 16-17). “Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: ‘Circumstantial
evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and
23
circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.’” Id. (quoting
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). Each fact need not point directly and independently to
the guilt of the defendant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating
circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d
341, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Johnson v. State, 871
S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
A person commits murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death
of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1). “Murder is a ‘result of
conduct’ offense, which means that the culpable mental state relates to the result of
the conduct, i.e., the causing of the death.” Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398, 400
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his
conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause
the result. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(a). A person acts knowingly with respect to
a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to
cause the result. Id. § 6.03(b).
“Intent and knowledge are fact questions for the jury[] and are almost always
proven through evidence of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” Manrique v.
State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Meyers, J., concurring); see
also Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The jury may
infer intent from any facts that tend to prove its existence, including the acts, words,
24
and conduct of the defendant. Manrique, 994 S.W.2d at 649. Intent to kill may also
be inferred from the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the victim, the
method of committing the crime, the size and strength of the parties, and the
defendant’s flight from the scene. See id. (noting that intent may be inferred from
“the method of committing the crime and from the nature of [the] wounds inflicted
on the victim[]”); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
(concluding that intent may be “inferred from the extent of the injuries and the
relative size and strength of the parties[]”); Wilkerson v. State, 881 S.W.2d 321, 324
(Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (considering the nature of the injury inflicted and the
defendant’s flight from the scene, among other facts, in concluding that the evidence
was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of intent to kill); Felder v. State, 848
S.W.2d 85, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (considering the number and location of the
stab wounds inflicted on the victim in examining the sufficiency of the evidence to
support intent to kill finding). A jury may also infer knowledge from such evidence.
Manrique, 994 S.W.2d at 649.
On the record before us, we conclude that the jury could have made reasonable
inferences from the evidence and found that the evidence showed beyond a
reasonable doubt that Felix Guillory was guilty of murder as charged. The jury heard
testimony from law enforcement regarding Shane’s injuries observed at the scene,
and the jury saw photographs of Shane’s injuries at the scene. The jury heard
25
Ralston, the forensic pathologist that performed Shane’s autopsy, testify the cause
of Shane’s death was “multiple stab and incised wounds[,]” his death was a homicide
inflicted by another person, he suffered at least twenty-eight stab wounds from a
single-edged knife or a sharp instrument, and he had cut or stab wounds to his head,
face, chest, arms, back, hand, and neck.
The jury also heard James Guillory’s and Lawrence Brooks’s testimony that
they each saw Shane and Felix together shortly before Shane was found murdered
and Brooks’s testimony that it worried him to see Shane and Felix together. The jury
heard Detective Steele’s testimony that the interviews conducted, including Felix’s
inconsistent interview, and the DPS crime lab results from the evidence at the scene
led him to believe Felix was involved in Shane’s murder. The jury heard Detective
Steele’s testimony that, based on the evidence at the scene, he believed Shane and
Felix began arguing in the vehicle, continued fighting in the vehicle, and that Shane
got out of the vehicle and tried to defend himself before he was murdered by Felix.
The jury heard evidence that Shane was left-handed. The jury saw photographs taken
during Felix’s interview the day after the murder of Felix’s injuries to the right side
of his body. The jury heard testimony that Felix was agitated when a search warrant
was executed to obtain his buccal swab. The jury heard Melancon testify that she
saw Felix walking fast across her property, which was in the vicinity of the murder,
about 2:00 a.m. that night. The jury heard Ehmann’s testimony regarding the DNA
26
profiles on the pocketknife blade, pocketknife handle, and Shane’s ring from the
scene and that the samples showed a mixture of DNA from Shane and Felix Guillory,
and that Felix Guillory could not be excluded as a DNA contributor to blood stains
on those pieces of evidence.
The jury also watched Felix’s recorded interview at the police department
where he admitted that he had been with Shane that evening, but he denied having
an altercation with Shane or being involved in the murder, but Felix could not
provide an explanation for apparent wounds to his body, and Felix stated in his
interview that Shane took him home that night and he had stayed home after that.
The jury heard Mayorga, who said she was Felix’s best friend, testify that Felix
showed up to her house a little after daylight on the morning of March 24, 2016, and
that he appeared “dishevel[]ed” that morning and like he had been in a fight. The
jury heard her testify that Felix had wounds on the right side of his face and had
blood on his shirt and shoes. The jury heard Mayorga testify that Felix was acting
unusual and that she did not believe his initial story that his injuries were from a
bedpost falling on him or his later story that the injuries occurred because he had
been “sparring with Po.”
After reviewing all the evidence and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have found the
essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt necessary to conclude that Appellant
27
committed the offense of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1); Jackson,
443 U.S. at 319; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; see also Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899
n.13; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. We overrule Appellant’s issue and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on June 25, 2021
Opinion Delivered August 11, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
28