CHRISTOPHER MAX HUGHES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed May 6, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-01243-CR
............................
CHRISTOPHER MAX HUGHES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 401-82396-07
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Richter, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Richter
        A jury convicted Christopher Max Hughes of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
Factual Background
 
        On August 14, 2007, pharmacist Rene Maney was working an overnight shift at a Walgreens in Frisco. At around 12:15 a.m., as Maney tried to fix a pill-counting machine inside the pharmacy, he heard someone jump over the counter. When he turned around, he saw a man standing inside the pharmacy only five feet away from him. The man had a backpack in one hand and a knife by his side in the other hand. The man demanded hydrocodone and said, “[T]he sooner you give me what I want the sooner this will be over.” Maney backed away from the man and pointed to a shelf. The man grabbed several bottles of hydrocodone, stuffed them into the backpack, jumped back over the counter, and ran from the store. Maney called the store manager over the intercom and gave the code for a robbery. Maney testified the knife the man held was a “folding type knife but not a switchblade,” the blade was three or four inches long, and he felt in fear of imminent bodily injury or death when he saw the knife. Maney testified that there were no cameras pointed directly at the pharmacy and a videotape from the store's surveillance cameras that was admitted into evidence only showed the man entering the store, getting a shopping cart, putting several items into the cart, then running out of the store.
        Eric Smith, the store manager, testified he saw a man come into the store carrying a backpack about thirty minutes before he saw the same man run out of the store. Smith talked to the man about three times while the man was inside the store. The man grabbed a shopping cart, asked where were a few items, and went to the restroom. The man placed school supplies and soft drinks into the cart. When Smith ran back to the pharmacy after receiving the robbery code, he found the man's cart in the middle of an aisle close to the pharmacy window. Smith then ran outside the building and saw the man run around the corner. Smith called 911. The police arrived within three or four minutes.
        Frisco police detective Trey Ramsey responded to the robbery call at Walgreens. Ramsey testified that after he talked with the pharmacist and the store manager, he obtained a videotape from the store's security cameras. The store manager pointed out the shopping cart used by the suspect. Ramsey removed several items from the cart for fingerprint analysis. Officer Jennifer Walker, a crime scene investigation supervisor for the Frisco Police Department, testified she retrieved latent fingerprints from a carton of soda, a plastic binder, and a package of pens that matched appellant's fingerprints.         Corporal Charles Portwood testified he conducted a felony traffic stop on appellant's vehicle, pursuant to an arrest warrant, at 8:00 p.m. on August 14, 2007. After appellant and his passenger were arrested and placed in patrol cars, Portwood and other officers searched appellant's vehicle. The officers found a backpack with three large bottles of hydrocodone inside it in the trunk underneath the spare tire. A videotape of the traffic stop was admitted into evidence and played to the jury.
        Detective Clay Anderson conducted a videotaped interview with appellant at 10:00 p.m. on August 14, 2007. Appellant made the following statements during the interview: (1) he committed the robbery at Walgreens; (2) he took the bottles of hydrocodone with the intention of committing suicide; (3) he was addicted to hydrocodone and could not break the habit; (4) he had ingested “about ten handfuls” of the hydrocodone pills and threw up; (5) he had a knife during the robbery, but he put it in his brother's truck; (6) there was “zero percent chance” that he could hurt anybody; and (7) he sold ten of the pills.   See Footnote 1 
Discussion
 
        In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction and the jury's affirmative finding of a deadly weapon because (1) the knife was never produced at trial, (2) the evidence did not show that the knife was a deadly weapon, (3) the complainant gave conflicting testimony and did not sustain any bodily injury or death, and (4) no evidence showed that in the manner of its use or intended use, the knife was capable of causing any injury. In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
        In a factual sufficiency review, we consider all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether (1) the evidence supporting the conviction is too weak to support the fact-finder's verdict or, (2) considering conflicting evidence, the fact-finder's verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We may only find the evidence factually insufficient when necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Id. Unless the record clearly reveals a different result is appropriate, we must defer to the fact- finder's determination concerning what weight to give to contradictory testimony. Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
        A person commits aggravated robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with the intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and he uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). A deadly weapon is anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 502-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
        Here, the jury heard testimony that appellant had a knife when he confronted the pharmacist and demanded the hydrocodone. Maney described the knife as a “folding-type knife” with a three or four-inch blade. Maney also told the jury that he felt threatened with imminent bodily injury or death when he saw the knife and appellant told him the sooner he complied the sooner the robbery would be over. It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and the jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Moreover, a deadly weapon finding may be made, if otherwise supported by the evidence, regardless of whether any injury was inflicted. See Villarreal v. State, 255 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex. App.-Waco, 2008, no pet.). The jury could have reasonably concluded that appellant threatened Maney with a knife that was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death when appellant demanded the hydrocodone.
        Viewed under the proper standards, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's deadly weapon finding and the conviction. We overrule appellant's two points of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
081243F.U05
 
Footnote 1 After resting its case-in-chief, the State called several witnesses who testified about a second robbery involving a Walgreens pharmacy in Plano that had occurred while appellant was on bond for the first robbery. The Plano store robbery did not involve a weapon.