Opinion
NO. 09-11-00451-CR
09-26-2012
JOHN RANDALL HICKMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-02-01460 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Randall Hickman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting judgments of conviction and concurrent two-year state jail sentences on his two convictions, one for criminal mischief and the other for theft of wire or cable. Because the evidence is sufficient to show that Hickman was a party to the two offenses on which he was found guilty, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
The jury acquitted Hickman of one count of a three count indictment, charging him with having burglarized a building.
We review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see also Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 894-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In reviewing the evidence, we give deference to the jury's responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from facts. See Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Hickman contends the evidence does nothing more than show that he was present at the scene. See generally Porter v. State, 634 S.W.2d 846, 849-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (holding mere presence insufficient to establish guilt under former alternate reasonable hypothesis construct). However, a person can become criminally responsible for the acts of others if he is a party to an offense. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 7.01(a) (West 2011). "A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if ... acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense[.]" Id. § 7.02(a)(2) (West 2011). Party participation may be shown by events occurring before, during, and after the commission of the offense. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Actions showing an understanding and a common design to commit the prohibited act establish the defendant's culpability. Id. "Evidence is sufficient to convict under the law of parties where the defendant is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement." Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op. on reh'g). A jury's conclusion may properly be based on reasonable inferences if they are based on the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
In this case, the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence reasonably allowed the jury to reach the conclusion that Hickman encouraged or aided the two offenses at issue. A witness, T.C., testified that in December 2009, he noticed a blue truck with a camper on the back and broken rear camper window in his neighbor's driveway. Knowing that his neighbor, J.B., was not home, T.C. decided to investigate. As he approached, he saw Hickman and Bruce Segrest standing next to a partially disassembled air conditioner. Segrest and Hickman had tools out, including a pair of bolt cutters, wire cutters, and a hatchet. According to T.C., they told him "that a friend had just bought the place and he was in town buying parts and they were going to fix his air conditioner." However, T.C. knew that the home had not been sold and that J.B. had owned it for many years. T.C. spoke to both men, but he did not recall which of the two men spoke to him. T.C. described their demeanor as defensive; one of the men walked to the driver's side of the truck. Because he felt vulnerable, T.C. explained that he returned to his truck and left. When he looked in the rear view mirror, T.C. noticed that the men got into their truck and left at a high rate of speed. T.C. followed in an effort to get the plate number on the truck. During T.C.'s pursuit, the truck skidded off of the road and struck a fence, but the person driving the truck did not stop. Eventually, T.C. decided the truck was going too fast to allow him to catch up, so he stopped his pursuit. On cross-examination, T.C. admitted that he did not know which man was driving the truck that he followed. T.C. also explained that during the pursuit, he called 911.
Deputy Audrey Terrell testified he responded to the dispatch of a burglary in progress. According to Deputy Terrell, he had seen a truck approximately two weeks earlier that matched the description of the one he was given for the truck involved in the reported burglary. Based on that knowledge, he knew Hickman to be the person who owned the blue truck. When Deputy Terrell found Hickman later that day, Hickman told him that the truck was his.
J.B explained that he and his sister had inherited the property where the theft occurred. J.B. explained that the property was posted, "No Trespassing." J.B. also described the copper wiring, pipes, and fixtures that were installed on the property. J.B. explained that T.C. called him and told him about the theft. According to J.B., when he inspected the property in early January 2010, most of the copper from the air conditioner had been removed along with some copper piping that ran from a trailer to a propane tank. J.B. also explained that various property was damaged from what appeared to him as having been a search for copper. J.B. stated that the air conditioner, worth approximately $4,500, was totally destroyed. According to J.B., other structures on the property were broken into and other items were taken, including a small air compressor, several ladders, copper fittings, a fan, and a space heater.
Bruce Segrest also testified during the trial. Segrest admitted that he broke into J.B.'s air conditioner and that he stole copper, but he claimed no one helped him. Segrest claimed that he walked from his sister's house in the same neighborhood to J.B.'s property, carrying some tools. According to Segrest, he was at J.B.'s property only one time for approximately 45 minutes. Segrest explained that he called Hickman and asked for a ride because he was stranded. When Hickman arrived, Segrest told Hickman he was checking on an air conditioner he was going to repair. Then, Segrest put copper in the back of Hickman's truck. Segrest stated that he spoke to T.C. before leaving in Hickman's truck. According to Segrest, Hickman drove and they hit a fence after hitting a pothole. Segrest testified: "I took the copper and Mr. Hickman didn't know anything of me in foul play, nor was he involved with it at all."
In a jury trial, the jury is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979). Here, it is undisputed that Hickman assisted Segrest in transporting stolen property from the location where it was stolen. Further, the evidence allowed the jury to infer that more than air conditioning parts were loaded into Hickman's truck, and Hickman was present when his truck was loaded with various pieces of copper and other items taken from multiple structures located on J.B.'s property. Given the number of structures and extent of the destruction to J.B.'s property, the jury could have inferred that Segrest did not remove all of the items from all of the structures involved without help doing so. The jury could reasonably infer that Hickman knew the property in his truck was stolen because he left at a high rate of speed and then engaged in a prolonged chase to avoid T.C.'s inquiry. After the theft, Hickman replaced the tag on his truck with the tag that belonged to a former owner. The jury could reasonably infer that Hickman was aware that he was involved in a crime.
Considering all of the evidence, as well as the reasonable inferences available from it, we hold the evidence is sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hickman aided Segrest in committing theft and criminal mischief. We overrule Hickman's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
_______________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.