Edward Charles Holland v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Crim Dist Ct of Jefferson County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00239-CR

Edward Charles Holland,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 91161

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Edward Holland was indicted for the felony offense of aggravated robbery. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003). He pled not guilty and was tried before a jury. The jury found him guilty, found that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense, and assessed punishment at thirty years confinement. Holland argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the verdict. The premise of his argument is that the guilty verdict was based upon uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice witness.

We will overrule his issues and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

The alleged robbery took place at the home of Roderick Morris and his mother. According to the State s witnesses, ten to fifteen persons were in the house at the time of the robbery. Witnesses testified that two black males forcibly entered the house through the back door. The men were carrying handguns and wearing masks and gloves. The men ordered everyone to get on the floor. Two witnesses testified to being kicked by one of the men. One of the witnesses testified to giving the men his money. Morris testified that he was at his home when the two men entered. He ran out of the house and called the police from a neighbor s house. He described to the police the vehicle parked in front of the house. Beaumont police stopped a vehicle matching the description provided by Morris. Holland was the driver of that vehicle. The passenger of the vehicle fled on foot. Leonce Monroe testified that he was the passenger that fled and that he was Holland s accomplice in committing the robbery.

Holland s legal and factual insufficiency arguments are premised on his claim that Monroe s testimony was uncorroborated. An accomplice witness is someone who participated before, during, or after the commission of the crime, to the extent that he can be charged with the offense or with a lesser-included offense. Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Article 38.14 states: A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 2005). In conducting a sufficiency review under the accomplice witness rule, we eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to determine if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. Soloman v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The corroborating evidence need not be sufficient by itself to establish guilt. Id.

  The record contains sufficient evidence to connect Holland with the offense. Witnesses described the robbers as two black males, one large and heavy set and one smaller and skinnier. The witnesses testified that the smaller male was wearing yellow gloves, a black leather coat, and old blue Nike shoes. A black leather coat and yellow rubber gloves were found inside the vehicle Holland was driving at the time of his arrest. Holland was also wearing blue shoes matching the witnesses description. Morris described the vehicle that was parked in front of his house during the robbery as champagne colored with a maroon top. Holland was driving a vehicle matching that description. Witnesses testified that the heavier robber carried a nine millimeter handgun and the skinny one carried a .38 revolver with a brown handle. The officer that pursued the vehicle driven by Holland backtracked the route and found two handguns a nine millimeter and a .38 revolver on a sidewalk. The .38 was fully loaded. Morris s girlfriend testified that the skinny robber took Morris s cell phone from the house. The arresting officer testified that Holland had a cell phone in his possession when he was arrested. Morris s girlfriend testified that, after the police brought Holland back to the residence, someone called Morris s cell phone number and the cell phone in Holland s pocket rang. An officer testified that Holland had $325 in cash in his pockets when he was arrested.

The corroborating evidence tends to connect Holland with the offense. Having determined that Monroe s testimony was sufficiently corroborated, we now consider Holland s legal and factual insufficiency claims. We review legal sufficiency by viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to 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, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). We review factual sufficiency by considering all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

In addition to the corroborating evidence above, the State presented the testimony of an accomplice witness. Monroe testified that he and Holland committed the robbery. He testified that he and Holland planned to rob the people in the house and take their dope. Holland told Monroe that he had been to the house a couple of weeks before the robbery and thought it would contain money and drugs.[1] According to Monroe, the guns used in the robbery were provided by Holland s brothers. Monroe testified that he and Holland used the guns to intimidate the persons inside and took money from the house. He testified that they took a cell phone, but that it was taken from someone outside the house. He described the clothes that Holland wore during the robbery: black leather jacket, dark pants, and blue Nikes. He could not recall what color Holland s gloves were. He testified that Holland told him to throw the pistols out the car window. He testified that when they stopped the car, he said to Holland, Man, let s go. Holland replied I ain t going nowhere. I didn t do nothing. Monroe then fled the scene.

Considering all of the evidence including the accomplice witness testimony and the corroborating evidence the jury could rationally have found Holland guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to sustain the verdict.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled the issues, we affirm the judgment.

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 6, 2005

Do not publish

[CRPM]

[1] A witness for the State identified Holland as a person who had been at the house approximately two weeks before the robbery.