Geraldmara Jermaine Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Geraldmara Jermaine Williams

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00032-CR C Appeal from Harris County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted appellant of capital murder, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for life. We affirm.

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was no evidence that appellant committed the underlying offense of robbery. We treat an issue complaining about a trial court's failure to grant a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). In order to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of 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 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000).

Shabir Brohi, the victim=s brother, testified at trial that he and his brother lived together at the Rubicon Apartments. Chronda Henderson, who lived at the same apartment complex, testified that, on February 11, 1999, sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m., she was taking her children to school and day care. Henderson stated that there was a man sitting on a green utility box and that he asked her who drove the black Mercedes located in the parking lot of the complex. Henderson directed the man to the apartment where the owner of the black Mercedes lived. Henderson identified appellant as the person seeking the owner of the black Mercedes. Another resident of the apartment complex also testified that a man approached her on the morning of February 11 and asked where the owner of the black Mercedes lived. That resident told the man she did not know where the owner lived. Brohi testified at trial that he owned a black Mercedes.

Brohi testified that, on February 11, he woke up around 8:00 a.m. when he heard a noise. Brohi thought that someone from the maintenance department was there to work on the apartment. Brohi got up and went into the bathroom which adjoined his bedroom. Brohi then heard a knock on his bedroom door. Brohi said that the victim never knocked on his bedroom door, so he was suspicious and asked the victim Awhat happened.@ The victim said to Brohi in their native language, ABrother, black man.@ Brohi went to the door; and the victim told Brohi, ABrother, be careful.@ Brohi opened the door and saw appellant holding a gun to the victim=s neck.

Brohi stated that appellant then pushed the victim toward the victim=s bedroom and that Brohi then heard a shot. Brohi went into his bedroom and got his gun. He heard two more shots. Appellant then pointed his gun at Brohi, but the gun did not fire. Appellant ran into the bathroom and shut the door. Brohi shot through the door. Brohi did not know if the shots he fired struck appellant. Brohi then called the police, and appellant ran out of the apartment.

Keith Pikett, with the Fort Bend County Sheriff=s Department, testified that he responded to the scene with his K-9 partner. Officer Pikett stated that the bloodhound followed appellant=s scent to a nearby apartment complex. Appellant was later found in a car in the parking lot of that apartment complex. Appellant had a bandage around his arm. A female who was with appellant gave consent to search the apartment she shared with appellant. In appellant=s bedroom, the police recovered blue jeans which had apparent bloodstains on them, a flannel shirt with blood on it, and a pair of shoes with blood drops on them. A bloody palm print found by the door of the Brohis=apartment matched appellant=s palm print. Blood samples recovered from the Brohis= bathroom matched that of appellant.

Appellant contends that there is no evidence to support the underlying offense of robbery. A person commits the offense of robbery if, Ain the course of committing theft,@ he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 29.02 (Vernon 1994). Proof of a completed theft is not required to establish a robbery. Wolfe v. State, 917 S.W.2d 270 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. den=d, 482 U.S. 920 (1987). While an intent to steal must be shown in order to prove an attempted theft, this intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), cert. den=d, 494 U.S. 1060 (1990).

The record shows that appellant inquired about the owner of a black Mercedes on the morning of the murder. Appellant was shown the apartment where the owner, Brohi, lived. Brohi was awakened by a noise in the apartment, and then appellant was at his bedroom door holding a gun to the victim=s neck. Brohi testified that he kept the keys to his Mercedes in his bedroom. After reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that appellant committed murder while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery. Appellant=s sole issue on appeal is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

December 12, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.