Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Granger v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

July 24, 2019

Burdane Maurice GRANGER, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee

          From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. B17780 Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

          Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

          OPINION

          PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ, JUSTICE

         On June 5, 2018, a Bexar County jury found Appellant Burdane Maurice Granger guilty of felony assault-family violence, enhanced by prior felonies as a habitual offender. The trial court subsequently assessed punishment at forty years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Granger contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to include the definition of "dating relationship" in the court's charge and (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding of a dating relationship between Granger and the victim, Carrie Guerrero.

         Because we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that a dating relationship existed between Granger and Guerrero, and Granger failed to show egregious harm, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         On August 1, 2017, after several witnesses saw Granger pull his ex-girlfriend, Carrie Guerrero, by the hair and place her in a headlock, Granger was arrested for assault. The events were recorded on a security system owned by Francis Galvan Jr., a neighbor across the street. Granger fled the scene after a second neighbor, Phillip Lowry, drew a knife and demanded Granger release Guerrero. Kerrville Police Officer Ed Holloway located and arrested Granger shortly thereafter.

         On November 13, 2017, Granger was indicted on felony assault-family violence, enhanced with a prior family violence assault conviction. Granger's indictment also included two prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes.

         On July 5, 2018, a Kerrville County jury found Granger guilty of felony assault-family violence. The trial court subsequently sentenced Granger to forty years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal ensued.

         On appeal, Granger contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to include the definition of "dating relationship" in the court's charge and (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding of a dating relationship between Granger and Guerrero.

         Dating Relationship

         We first address whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a dating relationship between Granger and Guerrero.

         A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

         1. Standard of Review

         In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "we view 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." Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); accord Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). "This standard recognizes the trier of fact's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence . . . ." Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860; accord Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746. The reviewing court must also give deference to the jury's ability "to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). "Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)).

         We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury by reevaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We defer to the jury's responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the evidence fairly, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; King, 29 S.W.3d at 562. The jury alone decides whether to believe eyewitness testimony, and it is solely responsible for resolving any conflicts in the evidence. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15; Young v. State, 358 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref'd). In conducting a sufficiency review, "[w]e do not engage in a second evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure that the jury reached a rational decision." Young, 358 S.W.3d at 801.

         An appellate court "measures whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction by comparing the evidence to 'the elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.'" Hernandez v. State, 556 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (quoting Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).

A hypothetically correct jury charge is one that "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.