Steven Daniels v. the State of Texas

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed June 15, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-01016-CR
STEVEN DANIELS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-2100336-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Nowell, and Justice Smith
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
A jury convicted Steven Daniels of capital murder; specifically, murder in the
course of committing or attempting to commit retaliation. Daniels appeals the trial
court’s final judgment, which assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. In his
sole issue on appeal, Daniels argues the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction. In a cross-issue, the State requests that this Court modify the judgment
to reflect the correct charged offense. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to
support Daniels’s conviction. We sustain the State’s cross issue and modify the
judgment to reflect the correct charged offense. The trial court’s final judgment is
affirmed as modified.
I. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
Viewed under the appropriate standard, the evidence at trial shows as follows.
Daniels was in a long-term dating relationship with Tequilla Stroye, the mother of
Jamilia Stroye, the victim. Daniels was not Jamilia’s father. They lived together,
and after a few years Daniels and Tequilla had a child together. Around this time,
when Jamilia was fifteen years old, Daniels “did something to her while she was
asleep.” As a result, Jamilia moved out, to live with her aunt, Pearlie Stephens.
Jamilia lived with Pearlie from the time she was fifteen years old until she was
twenty-two years old. Jamilia was estranged from her mother, Tequilla.
In 2019, Jamilia began dating Brandon Jones. They eventually became
engaged and resided together along with Jamilia’s son and Brandon’s two daughters.
Brandon encouraged Jamilia to reconcile with her mother, and from time to time
they visited the apartment her mother shared with Daniels for barbeques and drinks.
On May 29, 2020, Jamilia, Brandon, and their children went to Daniels’s and
Tequilla’s apartment for a cookout and family gathering. Pearlie and Iris Sanders
were also there. A few hours into the gathering, Jamilia was sitting in a chair that
faced the front door of the home. The children were nearby, sitting at a table. Jamilia
observed Daniels masturbating on the patio and recorded what she saw on her
cellular phone.
–2–
Jamilia showed the video to Tequilla. Both mother and daughter were upset
and they confronted Daniels. Daniels apologized and said he was leaving and going
back to Texarkana, where he was from. Then Jamilia found Brandon and, in an
angry demeanor, told him they needed to leave. Jamilia, Brandon, and the children
left the gathering and went home.
Once they were parked at their apartment, Jamilia showed Brandon the
recording and he was also angered by what Daniels had done. Brandon sent the
recording to his phone. Jamilia and the children went inside their home, and she
called the police. Meanwhile, Daniels told Tequilla that he was going home to
Texarkana; he took clothing to his car, and he drove away from the apartment
complex parking lot. Tequilla stated that Daniels was “acting like a man who knew
the police were on their way.” After he left, Daniels spoke with Tequilla on the
phone and told her that, if the video were to get out, he would lose his job and his
life would be over. He also stated that, if Jamilia called the police, he would go to
jail.
Brandon went back to Tequilla’s and Daniels’s home to confront him. Daniels
was not there, but drove back within a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, Jamilia drove
up and blocked the street with her car, so Daniels could not leave. Jamilia and
Brandon believed the police would arrive soon. Brandon testified that neither he nor
Jamilia had weapons while waiting for the police.
–3–
Pearlie and others saw Brandon get out of his vehicle and knock on Daniels’s
car while Jamilia stood a short distance away. Daniels got out of his car, and Pearlie
heard the men “having words with each other.” Then, Pearlie saw a knife in
Daniels’s hand and yelled “he’s got a knife.” Daniels stabbed Brandon in the arm,
causing him to fall to the ground. Then Brandon yelled “run, baby, run” to Jamilia
as Daniels chased her with the knife. Pearlie saw Daniels stabbing Jamilia; Brandon
heard her yell, “He’s stabbing her. He’s stabbing her.” Jamilia died quickly from
her extensive and severe injuries.
After killing Jamilia, Daniel walked away carrying the knife in his hand.
Brandon chased Daniels with his vehicle and struck him at low speed. Daniels
managed to stand up and walked to the median of the road where the police found
him holding the knife. After a thirty-minute standoff, Daniels was arrested.
Daniels testified in his defense and admitted he was the man masturbating in
the video. He admitted that his conduct on the video was illegal and that he could
have gone to jail if Jamilia showed it to the police. He claimed at trial that Jamilia
and Brandon were armed and that he stabbed them in self-defense.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue on appeal, Daniels argues the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction for capital murder because the evidence does not support his
intent to commit the aggravating offense of retaliation. He contends that his
nonretaliatory motive is clear from his testimony and the testimony of other
–4–
witnesses. Furthermore, he contends the evidence is “uncertain” or absent to show
that he knew the police had been called, that he would be charged, or that Jamilia
would be a witness against him in a future criminal case.
A. Standard of Review
Under the Due Process Clause, a criminal conviction must be based on legally
sufficient evidence. Harrell v. State, 620 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court considers all of
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the jury
was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979); Harrell, 620 S.W.3d at 913–14. Further, an
appellate court is required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations
because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight
assigned to their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 326; Harrell, 620 S.W.3d
at 914. An appellate court will consider all evidence when reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted,
or submitted by the prosecution or defense. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
B. Applicable Law
A person commits the offense of capital murder if he intentionally commits
murder in the course of or attempting to commit retaliation. See PENAL § 19.03(a)(2).
A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
–5–
individual. Id. § 19.02(b)(1). A person commits the offense of retaliation if he
intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm another by an unlawful act in
retaliation for or on account of the service or status of another as a person who has
reported or who the actor knows intends to report the occurrence of a crime. See id.
§ 36.06(a)(1)(B).
A person acts intentionally, or with intent, when it is his conscious objective
or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a). Direct evidence
of the elements of the offense, including the identity of the perpetrator and culpable
mental state, is not required. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). The jury is permitted to make reasonable inferences from the evidence
presented at trial, and circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in
establishing the guilt of the actor. Id. 14–15. Circumstantial evidence alone may be
sufficient to establish guilt. Id. at 15.
C. Application of the Law to the Facts
Daniels admits that he stabbed and killed Jamilia, but contends he acted in
self-defense because he thought Jamilia and Brandon were planning to kill him.
However, the jury was instructed on the theory of self-defense and rejected Daniels’s
claim.1
1
Although Daniels contends his actions were not in retaliation but in defense, he does not argue the
evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his self-defense theory or cite to any authority
relating to self-defense. And, in his prayer, he requests that we order a new trial or revise the judgment to
show he is guilty of murder, not capital murder, and order a new hearing on punishment.
–6–
Daniels contends the evidence is insufficient to show he knew Jamilia’s status
as a person who has reported or who he knew intended to report the occurrence of a
crime because Tequilla stated that she did not know or tell Daniels that Jamilia had
called the police. See PENAL § 36.06(a)(1)(B). The record suggests otherwise.
Although Tequilla claimed that she learned Jamilia had called the police from
Brandon and she did not tell Daniels the police were on their way, Brandon stated
that Jamilia told his mother and Tequilla that she had called the police. Further,
Tequilla testified Daniels told her that he was going home to Texarkana, he took
clothing to his car, and he was “acting like a man who knew the police were on their
way.” And, after Daniels left their apartment, she spoke with him on the phone and
he told her that, if the video were to get out, he would lose his job and his life would
be over, and, if Jamilia called the police, he would go to jail. From this evidence a
rational jury could have inferred Daniels knew Jamilia’s status as a person who has
reported or who he knew intended to report the occurrence of a crime.
Further, Daniels argues that the evidence relating to his actions during the day
of the murder show that he was not acting in retaliation because he was at a friendly
social gathering with Jamilia and Brandon, he admitted to masturbating but stated
he had not intended for Jamilia to see him, he attempted to apologize to Jamilia, and
harming Jamilia would not stop the publication of the video of him masturbating.
To the extent that Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the basis
of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, it is actually an attack
–7–
on the credibility and weight assigned to the evidence by the jury. We are required
to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations. See Jackson, 443 U.S.
at 319, 326; Harrell, 620 S.W.3d at 914.
After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a rational jury could have
found that Daniels intentionally murdered Jamilia in the course of committing or
attempting to commit retaliation. Accordingly, we conclude the evidence is
sufficient to support Daniels’s conviction for capital murder.
Daniels’s sole issue is overruled .
III. MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT
In a cross-issue, the State requests that we modify the judgment to reflect the
correct offense. The State points out that the final judgment incorrectly states
Daniels was convicted of capital murder by terroristic threat instead of capital
murder by retaliation.
The record shows that Daniels was indicted for capital murder while in the
course of committing or attempting to commit retaliation, the jury was charged on
this theory of the offense, and the jury found him guilty of this offense. An appellate
court has the authority to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record speak the
truth when it has the necessary information to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b);
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813
S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc).
–8–
We conclude the trial court’s final judgment should be modified as follows:
“Offense for which Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY
TERRORISTIC THREAT” is modified to read “Offense for which Defendant
Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY RETALIATION.”
The State’s cross-issue is sustained.
IV. CONCLUSION
The evidence is sufficient to support Daniels’s conviction for capital murder.
Also, the trial court’s judgment is modified to state the correct offense.
As modified, the trial court’s final judgment is affirmed.
The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the
modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment in this case. See Shumate
v State, 649 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).
/Robert D. Burns, III//
211016f.u05 ROBERT D. BURNS, III
Do Not Publish CHIEF JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
–9–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
STEVEN DANIELS, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-21-01016-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-2100336-U.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Burns. Justices Nowell and Smith
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:
“Offense for which Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY
TERRORISTIC THREAT” is modified to read “Offense for which
Defendant Convicted: CAPITAL MURDER BY RETALIATION.”
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects this
modification.
Judgment entered this 15th day of June 2023.
–10–