Terrell Kinyon Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 354th District Court of Hunt County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00005-CR

______________________________

TERRELL KINYON DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21,887

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terrell Kinyon Davis appeals from his conviction for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm. Davis was convicted on five separate charges in the same trial, and the evidence of the underlying offenses is set out in detail in our opinion in Davis v. State, cause number 06-05-00001-CR, also released this date. In this opinion, we will address Davis' contention of error as it applies to this conviction.

Davis argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that he possessed a firearm. // In our review, we apply the usual standards as set out in Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), and Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

There is evidence that Davis is a convicted felon, and Davis does not complain of that aspect of the proof on appeal. The State presented evidence that a silver automatic pistol was found hidden behind a refrigerator, tucked on top of the motor, in the carport from which he ran. Tevas Jackson testified that the attacker had a chrome pistol. Jackson's daughter, LaKendra Jackson, was not able to provide details about the appearance of the gun, but did testify she saw the man with a gun and saw him strike her mother on the head with it, and saw him point the gun at her while threatening her.

The jury was entitled to conclude that Davis had hidden the gun, especially in light of the homeowners' denial that the pistol belonged to them, and in light of all of the surrounding circumstances. The fact that no fingerprints were found is not controlling, especially in light of the evidence that the attacker was wearing gloves. The jury could have reasonably believed in light of that evidence that Davis had disposed of the pistol by hiding it in that location. There is no evidence to the contrary that might otherwise explain its discovery. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict.

We affirm the judgment.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 27, 2005

Date Decided: November 21, 2005

Do Not Publish