Michael Ray Reed, Jr. v. State ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-17-00360-CR
MICHAEL RAY REED, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 320th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 72,671-D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding
January 24, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Following a jury trial, Michael Ray Reed, Jr., appellant, was found guilty of the
offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.1 His punishment was assessed at
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for six years. In his sole issue,
appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a convicted
felon as alleged by the indictment. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(2) (West 2011).
Background
In August of 2016, while on patrol near the intersection of Northeast 10th and
Hughes street, Amarillo police officers Nathan Thompson and David Wolven, saw a
Tahoe turn around ahead of them with the driver’s door open. As the officers got closer
to the Tahoe, they heard a woman “screaming something about a gun.” The officers
initiated a traffic stop, ordered the driver, appellant, out of the Tahoe, and placed him in
handcuffs. The officers asked appellant if he had a weapon or gun and appellant said
no. Officer Thompson asked appellant if he could look in the vehicle. At that point,
appellant said there was a gun in the center console. Officer Thompson retrieved the
firearm underneath the cup holders where appellant said the gun was located. Appellant
was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
Appellant pled not guilty and proceeded to trial. The State introduced portions of
the police dashcam video to which appellant stipulated. In the video, appellant
acknowledged that he is a convicted felon and that he carried a firearm for his protection
because he had been threatened. The trial court also admitted, without objection, a
certified copy of a judgment memorializing appellant’s felony conviction for “assault
causing bodily injury to a family member, enhanced” and an order showing appellant’s
successful completion of community supervision for that conviction in 2007.2 The jury
found appellant guilty of the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon from
which he appeals.
2 The order discharging appellant from community supervision did not release appellant from the
penalties and disabilities resulting from the judgment of conviction
2
Analysis
In a single issue, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
jury’s finding that he had been previously convicted of a felony. When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict to determine whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.
Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). “[O]nly that evidence which is sufficient in character, weight, and amount to justify
a fact finder in concluding that every element of the offense has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt is adequate to support a conviction.” Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917
(Cochran, J., concurring). We must “defer to the jury’s credibility and weight
determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the
weight to be given their testimony.” Id. at 899.
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1997). To prove unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, the State was
required to prove that appellant (1) possessed a firearm at a location other than the
premises at which he lives and (2) after conviction and after the fifth anniversary of his
release from community supervision. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(2).
Appellant does not dispute that the investigating officers found a firearm in the
center console of his Tahoe at a location away from his home. Appellant does not
question the proximity and position of the firearm to appellant inside the Tahoe, or the
fact that he successfully completed probation in 2007 for an assault, enhanced.
3
Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because
the jury did not hear facts establishing that appellant was previously convicted of a felony
offense. According to appellant, the certified copy of the judgment did not establish
appellant was a convicted felon because it “was never published to the jury.” Appellant
concludes that, as such, there was no testimony indicating appellant had been convicted
of a prior felony. The State responds by pointing to the video evidence in which appellant
admitted to police that he was a convicted felon and the certified copy of appellant’s prior
felony conviction which was admitted into evidence without objection. We agree with the
State.
Appellant’s status as a convicted felon was acknowledged by appellant himself in
the video recording played for the jury. Moreover, the certified copy of appellant’s
conviction for assault, enhanced, was admitted into evidence and the judgment itself
reflects it is a third-degree felony. Appellant admitted that he was the defendant identified
in the prior conviction. Thus, the record contains sufficient information to establish
appellant was a convicted felon. See Hutchings v. State, 333 S.W.3d 917, 922 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. dism’d) (admission of judgment of prior felony conviction is
sufficient evidence of a prior felony conviction). Appellant cites us to no authority nor are
we aware of any authority which requires a finding on the record that the jury “saw” the
judgment when it is clear that it was admitted into evidence.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a
rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was a convicted
felon when he possessed the weapon. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.
4
Conclusion
Having overruled appellant’s issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
5