Dan Erwin Hill v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Lampasas County

Hill v. State IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-90-342-CR
DAN ERWIN HILL,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT,
NO. 5961, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

 

Appellant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, enhanced by a prior offense, and sentenced by the trial court to fifteen years imprisonment. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 20.03 (1989). In a single point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in rendering judgment because of insufficiency of the evidence. We will affirm the judgment of conviction.

The complainant testified at trial that appellant got into his car at a service station and told him to start driving. Complainant stated that he felt threatened and was scared for his safety. When a state trooper later stopped them for speeding, appellant told complainant that appellant would kill both him and the state trooper if he said anything to the trooper. After the trooper left, complainant drove to Lampasas where he had to stop for gasoline. Complainant testified that he attempted to communicate with a patron at the service station, but he was unable to get help because appellant was watching him. Complainant then drove appellant to a liquor store where complainant was able to escape, run to a convenience store, and ask a clerk to call the police.

The critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court does not ask whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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, 318-19 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155, 159 (Tex. Cr. App. 1981). On the record before us, we conclude that the jury could have found the essential elements of kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt, including the fact that appellant restrained complainant. Appellant's point of error is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Kidd]

Affirmed

Filed: June 12, 1991

[Do Not Publish]