DAVID ANTWIONE GUINN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 3, 2010
 
 
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-01344-CR
............................
DAVID ANTWIONE GUINN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F08-55577
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Richter
        Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. In two issues on appeal, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show that he used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. Concluding appellant's arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
Standard of Review
 
        In two issues, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has overruled Clewis v. State, holding that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard a reviewing court is to apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brooks v. State, No. PD-0210-09, 2010 WL 3894613, at * 1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (plurality op.) This standard requires the reviewing court to determine whether, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at *5 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 319). We defer to the jury's determinations of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony because the jury is the sole judge of those matters. Id. at *5.
Discussion
 
        The charging instrument in this case alleged that appellant committed aggravated robbery by use of two deadly weapons: a knife and a car. Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to establish he used a deadly weapon because the testimony about the knife was not sufficiently specific and because the co-robber who testified against appellant did not corroborate the testimony about the knife or testify about the car at all.
         A person commits robbery, if, in the course of committing theft and with the intent to obtain or maintain control of property, the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another or intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2003). A person commits aggravated robbery if the person uses or exhibits a deadly weapon in the course of a robbery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 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).
        The evidence adduced at trial established that Boniface Forzi was working in his store when appellant and Moses Kuffuor entered the establishment, grabbed articles of clothing, and began to flee the store. Forzi testified that when he confronted appellant, appellant pulled a knife and said something about killing him. Forzi could not provide detail on the knife, but described it as “like silver” in color and some multiple number of inches in length. Although the record does not reflect a precise number of inches, Forzi provided the jury with a visual demonstration of the knife's approximate length. He testified that there was “maybe two feet” of distance between himself and appellant, and the knife was of sufficient length to cause him concern for his own safety. Although Forzi was afraid, he chased appellant anyway because he was frustrated about having been robbed so many times in the past. Forzi saw appellant and Kuffuor get into a car. Forzi did not believe appellant was driving the car, but testified the car swerved toward him and tried to run over him. When this occurred, Forzi had to jump out of the way. As he was chasing the car, Forzi was able to read the license plate number on the car, and relayed that information to the police when he called 911 on his cell phone.
        Officer Clay Woods responded to the 911 call and met Forzi at the scene. Officer Woods confirmed that Forzi relayed he was threatened by a knife and that the car of fleeing robbers had “tried to run him over.”Appellant and Kuffuor were apprehended, and Forzi subsequently identified them as the men who had robbed him.
        Kuffuor testified against appellant at trial, and stated that he and appellant had planned to steal clothes from Forzi's store. Kuffuor stated he did not see a knife or a weapon. Though he admitted it was speculation, he also stated he thought appellant might have used a weapon. Kuffuor also testified about a telephone conversation with appellant in which appellant stated that he “did what he had to do.” Kuffuor interpreted this to mean appellant had pulled a knife on Forzi.
        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. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The jury could reasonably have concluded that appellant threatened Forzi with a knife that was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death and was a party to a robbery involving use of a car as a deadly weapon.
        Viewing the evidence under the appropriate standard, we conclude the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant's first and second issues are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
 
                                        
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
 
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
091344F.U05