Opinion
No. 05-14-00943-CR No. 05-14-00944-CR
02-04-2016
CHARLES EVERAGE DOYAL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-80146-2014 & 199-80147-2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
A jury convicted Charles Everage Doyal of three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal Doyal argues the trial court erred by concluding he lacks standing to challenge the search of cell-phone records and the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
BACKGROUND
Ryan's friend Robert Brooks went to Ryan's house about 10:00 p.m. on the night of the robbery. Ryan was in his garage when Brooks arrived. Ryan described Brooks's visit as "random" and it "startled" him because he had not seen Brooks for several weeks. The men sat in Ryan's car for awhile, listening to music and drinking wine. They drove to a nearby neighborhood pool where they continued to listen to music and drink wine. But Brooks wanted to return to Ryan's house, which they did. They went inside and shortly thereafter Ryan's friend Deidra came to the house.
Ryan is the brother of the sexual assault victim, A.I. To protect their identities, we will refer to Ryan only by his first name and A.I. by her initials. --------
While at Ryan's house, Brooks was texting and talking on his cell phone. Brooks made his calls while standing outside of the house even though Ryan told Brooks he could go upstairs inside the house if he needed privacy. After finishing his phone calls, Brooks went upstairs in the house where Ryan's sister, A.I., was sleeping.
Approximately five minutes later, two men wearing ski masks came into the house and told Ryan and Deidra to "get on the floor" or they would slit their throats. One man was carrying a knife and the other had a gun. Ryan recognized the voice of the man carrying the gun as Brooks's half-brother Trayvon Hatter. He did not recognize the other man's voice.
The man with the knife slashed Ryan's arm, cutting him badly. Someone then hit Ryan and pushed him to the floor. A man stomped on Deidra's head. The men covered Ryan's and Deidra's heads with a blanket. Hatter pressed the gun against Ryan's neck and held it there throughout the robbery. Ryan and Deidra both testified they experienced pain and were scared they might be hurt or killed.
At some time during the robbery, Brooks came downstairs. However, the intruders did not cover his head or steal any of his belongings. Eventually Brooks was told to leave the house, which he did. Brooks did not call 911 after he left.
A.I. was asleep when a man kicked her bedroom door open. He wore a mask and carried a knife. He told A.I. to "get down on the floor" and threatened to hurt her. A.I. complied. The man covered her face with the comforter from her bed and told her not to look at him. He then told her to "spread her legs," which she did. He removed her underwear and penetrated her vaginally with his fingers, which caused her a lot of pain. He then told her to go downstairs and lay down beside her brother. A.I. did not see the man's face.
For over 15 minutes, the men went in and out of the house removing Ryan's and A.I.'s possessions, including multiple computers, a speaker, a television, cellular phones, cash, and clothing. After the robbers left, Ryan went to a neighbor's house to call 911. He stated the men left the scene in a red SUV. Ryan later described the car to a detective as possibly being a red Jeep Cherokee.
After the assault, A.I. went to the hospital where a nurse examined her and collected DNA. The lab conducted Y-STR DNA testing on the samples. The DNA evidence excluded Trayvon Hatter from being the person who committed the sexual assault. However, it did not exclude Doyal. Anyone in Doyal's parental lineage could have contributed the DNA found on the vaginal swabs taken from A.I. Based on the calculations done by the lab that analyzed the DNA, ninety-nine percent of males do not have the Y-STR profile that Doyal has. Brooks, Trayvon Hatter, and Charles Doyal are half-brothers; they have the same mother, but different fathers.
During the investigation, Ryan gave Brooks's cell phone number to Detective Beth Chaney of the Plano Police Department, and Chaney acquired records from Brooks's cell phone provider. Examining the records, Chaney saw multiple phone calls between Brooks and another phone number in the time period immediately preceding the robbery. Chaney called that number and Doyal answered the phone. Doyal agreed to go to the Plano Police Department and talk to Chaney.
During the interview, Chaney examined Doyal's phone and found texts between Doyal and Brooks that were exchanged near the time of the robbery:
[Brooks]: Wait till i say. CumChaney testified the term "lick" is commonly used to mean robbery.
[Brooks]: Lean back dnt let him se yall
[Doyal]: You in the house
[Brooks]: Garage
. . .
[Doyal]: Have he been in the house is the alarms on or off
. . .
[Doyal]: Bro don't cum back out here no more nigga u gone fuck up the lick
Chaney also obtained photographs from Doyal's phone. The pictures were all taken shortly after the robbery. One of the pictures is of several hundred dollars in $20 bills. Other pictures showed Doyal and Brooks wearing items of clothing that Ryan identified as his clothing that was stolen during the robbery. Chaney also learned a red Ford Escape, which is an SUV-type vehicle, was registered to Doyal's wife and Doyal exclusively drove the car.
Chaney secured a warrant to obtain Doyal's cell phone records from T-Mobile USA, Inc. The records she received included cell tower location information. She examined telephone calls made between Doyal's and Brooks's phones shortly before the robbery and discovered they used cell towers close to Ryan's home. Doyal told Chaney repeatedly in interviews that he always has his phone and did not let anyone else use his phone on the night of the robberies.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Standing to Challenge Search of Cell Phone Records
Doyal filed a motion to suppress the cell phone records obtained from T-Mobile, which the trial court denied. In his first and second issues, Doyal argues the trial court erred by concluding he lacked standing to challenge the search of records related to his cell phone. His challenges are based on the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution.
The court of criminal appeals recently addressed the Fourth Amendment arguments Doyal makes. See Ford v. State, No. PD-1396-14, 2015 WL 8957647, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 16, 2015). The issue in Ford was whether a warrantless acquisition of historical cell-site-location information recorded by the defendant's cell phone service provider violated the Fourth Amendment. See id. The court concluded it did not, stating:
because a third-party, AT&T, gathered and maintained the information as business records of the service provided to Ford's phone, Ford did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data. The State did not violate Ford's Fourth Amendment rights when it obtained the information by way of a court order under Article 18.21 § 5(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure . . ..Id.
In the case before us, Chaney used a search warrant to obtain business records from T-Mobile. As in Ford, Doyal "had no legitimate expectation of privacy in records held by a third-party cell-phone company identifying which cell-phone towers communicated with his cell phone at particular points in the past." Id. at *7. Because Doyal did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in T-Mobile's business records, the trial court did not err by concluding he lacked standing to contest the search and by denying his motion to suppress the records on that basis. We overrule Doyal's first issue.
Doyal also challenges the search under the Texas Constitution. He relies on Richardson v. State, a case in which the court of criminal appeals concluded "the use of a pen register may well constitute a 'search' under Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution." 865 S.W.2d 944, 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We disagree with Doyal that Richardson requires us to conclude he has a privacy interest in T-Mobile's business records that we must protect.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston considered this issue in Hankston v. State, No. 14-13-00923-CR, 2015 WL 3751551, at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 16, 2015, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Recognizing the protections afforded by the Texas Constitution, the Hankston court concluded the Texas Constitution does not provide any greater protection in situations such as this than does the Fourth Amendment. See id. (citing TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9). We agree. There is nothing in the Texas Constitution nor the cases interpreting article I, section 9 that would give Doyal a privacy interest in T-Mobile's business records such that he could successfully challenge the warrant the police used to obtain those records. Again, the trial court did not err by concluding Doyal lacked standing to contest the search and by denying his motion to suppress the records on this basis. We overrule Doyal's second issue.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal offense for which the State has the burden of proof under the single sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Under this standard, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (footnotes omitted).
It is the factfinder's duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Id. 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. Id. When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict and therefore defer to that determination. Id. Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: 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. Id.
Doyal argues the Y-STR DNA evidence could not sufficiently link Doyal to the offenses and that by eliminating the cell phone records and considering the inclusivity of the Y-STR DNA, a rational juror could not have found Doyal guilty of the offenses. Because Y-STR DNA is not specific to an individual and it can "match" any male within the parental lineage of the donor, Doyal asserts the State's DNA evidence did not eliminate other male members of Doyal's family and the evidence is insufficient.
Although Doyal focuses his argument on the inclusivity of the Y-STR DNA evidence, that evidence was not all the State presented to the jury. While the Y-STR DNA evidence did not definitively identify Doyal as the perpetrator, it also did not exclude him as a suspect. The Y-STR DNA significantly limited the pool of potential suspects to men with the same Y-STR DNA profile as Doyal. It also excluded Brooks and Hatter as the DNA contributors because Books, Hatter, and Doyal have different fathers, which means they would not share the same Y-STR DNA profile.
The State also presented evidence that Doyal repeatedly told Detective Chaney he had his phone with him on the night of the robbery. The texts on the phone included Brooks's instruction to Doyal to "Lean back dnt let him se yall" and Doyal telling Brooks "Bro don't cum back out here no more" when Brooks was going outside to use his phone. The photographs obtained from Doyal's phone depicted Doyal and Brooks wearing items stolen from Ryan during the robbery. The evidence also showed Doyal texted Brooks that Brooks was going to "fuck up the lick," meaning the robbery, if Brooks continued coming outside. The T-Mobile records reflected that Doyal's cell phone used towers near Ryan's house around the time of the robbery. Finally, Doyal drove a red SUV similar to the one Ryan described and Doyal said he did not permit anyone else to drive his car.
Even if we were to ignore T-Mobile's business records, as Doyal urges us to do, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to find Doyal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Although no witness directly identified Doyal as being one of the robbers, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove his presence at the crime scene.
We overrule Doyal's third issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 140943F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-80146-2014.
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Evans participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 4th day of February, 2016.
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-80147-2014.
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Evans participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 4th day of February, 2016.