Victor Hamilton v. State , 563 S.W.3d 442 ( 2018 )

Opinion issued October 25, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00461-CR
———————————
VICTOR HAMILTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 209th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1458269
OPINION
Victor Hamilton was indicted for the felony offense of aggravated robbery. A
jury found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 35 years’ confinement. On
appeal, Hamilton contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury
instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery and denying a hearing on his
motion for new trial. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hamilton entered a Walmart in northern Harris County, approached a store
associate in the electronics department, and asked her if the store had any tablet
computers in stock. The associate replied that she would check the stockroom, and
she headed toward the back of the store.
Unbeknownst to the associate, Hamilton followed her past the customer area
into the stockroom. When the associate unlocked the gate to the stockroom cage
area where the electronics were stored, she felt someone brush past her shoulder. In
a low voice, Hamilton told her that he had a gun and ordered her to stand still with
her hands up. Hamilton then moved where the associate could see him. He lifted
the bottom hem of his shirt to show her that he had his hand on a black handgun
tucked inside the waistband of his pants. Hamilton pulled a beige duffel bag out of
his pants, adjusted the gun so that it was snug inside his waistband, then pulled his
shirt down over the gun. Then, he began to take electronics equipment from the
shelf and load it into the bag. At some point, the associate started to lower her hands;
Hamilton placed his hand on the gun again and threatened, “Hey, I thought I told
you not to move.”
2
When Hamilton had filled the bag, he rushed out of the stockroom and into
the hall. He turned toward a double-door fire exit and started kicking the doors. The
associate ran out of the storage room and into a maintenance closet, where she hid
with other employees.
A Walmart loss-prevention officer in an office across the hall from the fire
exit heard banging on the doors and ran to investigate. As the fire alarm sounded,
the officer saw a man with a bag run out the fire exit and into the loading dock area.
She followed about ten feet behind him to observe his actions. As the man continued
his flight, he dodged in between truck trailers until he reached a gray Nissan sedan
that had been parked behind them. As the man drove away, the officer wrote down
his license plate number. After recording the number, the officer noticed an object
on the pavement beside one of the trailers. She retrieved the object, which turned
out to be a cell phone. She did not find a gun, see the man drop a gun, or notice
whether he had a gun. The man did not turn around during his flight; the loss-
prevention officer never saw his face. She was unable to identify Hamilton in court.
The loss-prevention officer gave the cell phone to a manager. She completed
an incident report, collected surveillance video from the store’s security cameras,
and compiled video showing the incident. She also compiled a list of missing
electronics inventory by comparing the serial numbers on the inventory remaining
in the stockroom with those recorded in the previous day’s inventory log.
3
Security video recordings from several cameras inside the store’s main floor
and outside of the store showed Hamilton before, during, and after his interaction
with the electronics associate. Video recorded inside the storage room does not show
Hamilton and the employee completely inside the frame. The camera was anchored
high on a wall and was some distance from the electronics area. The low-resolution
video shows Hamilton obscured by boxes, or with his back and side facing the
camera as he put the electronics into his bag. It does not show his front mid-section,
or a gun.
The retrieved cell phone was locked, so the loss-prevention officer removed
the SD card from the phone and inserted it into a computer device that was able to
read the data stored on the SD card. With information and images recovered from
the phone, the electronics associate applied the lessons she learned in her criminal
justice studies classes to locate Hamilton’s Facebook page.
Harris County deputy constables dispatched to Walmart interviewed the
electronics associate and the loss-prevention officer. The loss-prevention officer
gave them the surveillance video; the cell phone’s SD card; the cell phone; a photo
disc containing copies of the photos stored on the phone; the loss-prevention report;
and itemized receipts for the missing inventory. The loss-prevention officer also
provided information concerning the make, model, and license plate number of the
car Hamilton used to escape.
4
The constables found some of the stolen tablets at nearby pawn shops. They
presented a photo array to two pawnshop owners. Each identified Hamilton as the
person who pawned the tablets.
Proceedings below
During the charge conference, Hamilton asked the trial court to submit an
instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery by threat. The trial court denied
the request.
Post-verdict, Hamilton moved for a new trial, contending that the trial court
improperly denied his request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of
robbery and that new evidence had come to light. Hamilton included three affidavits
with his motion. In the first, his brother attested that he had been with Hamilton
immediately before the alleged aggravated robbery, Hamilton was not carrying a
weapon at that time, and Hamilton did not usually carry a gun. Hamilton’s mother
and wife executed the other two affidavits. They described his difficult childhood
and his mental illness.
The trial court did not grant a hearing on Hamilton’s motion for new trial, and
the motion was overruled by operation of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.8.
5
DISCUSSION
I. Refusal to Submit Robbery as a Lesser-included Offense
Hamilton first contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury
on the lesser-included offense of robbery.
A. Standard of review and applicable law
We apply a two-pronged test to determine whether Hamilton was entitled to a
charge on a lesser-included offense. See Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 875 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). We initially consider whether the offense contained in the
requested instruction is a lesser-included offense of the charged offense. Goad v.
State, 354 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). If it is, we decide whether the
admitted evidence supports the instruction. Id.An offense is a lesser-included offense if:
(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts
required to establish the commission of the offense charged;
(2) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less
serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property, or public
interest suffices to establish its commission;
(3) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less
culpable mental state suffices to establish its commission; or
(4) it consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or an
otherwise included offense.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.09; Aguilar v. State, 263 S.W.3d 430, 435 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d).
6
Robbery is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery. A person commits
robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with the intent to obtain or maintain
control over the property the person has appropriated or is appropriating, the person
intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 29.02(a)(2), 31.03(a). “To prove
aggravated robbery, the State must prove robbery plus an aggravating factor, such
as the defendant ‘uses or exhibits a deadly weapon.’” Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d
63, 69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a)(2)).
Next, we determine whether some evidence exists in the record that supports
giving the lesser-included offense instruction to the jury. Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d
524, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that
[a] defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense
where the proof for the offense charged includes the proof necessary to
establish the lesser-included offense and there is some evidence in the
record that would permit a jury rationally to find that if the defendant
is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser-included offense.
Id. This evidentiary burden requires more than a showing that the jury may
disbelieve crucial evidence pertaining to the greater offense. Sweed, 351 S.W.3d at
68. Some evidence directly germane to the lesser-included offense must affirmatively
show that the lesser-included offense is a valid, rational alternative to the charged
offense. Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Goad, 354
S.W.3d at 446. In determining whether the record satisfies this requirement, we
7
consider all the evidence admitted at trial—not just the evidence presented by the
defendant—regardless of its credibility or whether it conflicts with other
evidence. Goad, 354 S.W.3d at 446–47; see Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385.
Hamilton thus had the burden to identify some evidence adduced at trial that
affirmatively showed he did not use or exhibit a deadly weapon. E.g., Penaloza v.
State, 349 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); see
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.09(1); TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a)(2); Cavazos, 382
S.W.3d at 385.
B. Analysis
In contending he was entitled to a jury instruction on robbery as a lesser-
included offense, Hamilton relies on the security video that showed Hamilton in
flight without displaying a firearm; the video from inside the stockroom, in which a
gun is not visible; and the loss-prevention officer’s testimony that she did not see
whether Hamilton had a gun and she did not see Hamilton drop a gun.
Because Hamilton’s shirt and waistband and his interaction with the sales
associate are obscured on the video, this evidence does not affirm or negate the
proffered testimony regarding the use of a handgun. The associate recounted that,
after Hamilton entered the stockroom, he pulled up his shirt to show her the handgun
tucked in the front of his waistband while warning her to stay still and keep quiet.
According to the associate’s testimony, Hamilton removed the duffel bag from his
8
pants, adjusted the gun inside his waistband, pulled his shirt back down over the gun,
and began to load merchandise into the duffel bag. When Hamilton noticed the
associate start to lower her hands, he put his hand on the gun again while threatening
her. This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Hamilton concealed the gun.
Because the sightlines of the video could not reveal whether or not Hamilton used a
gun, it does not counter the testimony that Hamilton used a firearm during the
robbery. See Hampton v. State, 109 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (where
victim testified assailant used weapon during sexual assault, police’s failure to find
weapon during investigation was not affirmative evidence that assailant did not use
a weapon), abrogated on other grounds by Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009).
Hamilton relies on Nash v. State, 115 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2003, pet. ref’d), but Nash is distinguishable. There, a convenience store employee
reported that the defendant threatened her with an icepick while robbing the store.
Id. at 138–39. During a police interview, the defendant expressly denied using a
weapon during the robbery. Id. at 139. Video footage showed the robber holding
something that did not appear to be an icepick; it was not metallic and did not look
like a weapon. Id. The Texarkana Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s
statement to the officer denying the use of the weapon and the video recording
9
constituted some affirmative evidence that the robber did not use a weapon or that
the weapon he used was not deadly. Id.The storage-room video here captured images of Hamilton’s back and side,
but not his front. Given the vantage point, the video does not show whether
Hamilton used a gun in confronting the store associate. Unlike the video in Nash,
the video does not affirmatively controvert the store associate’s testimony that
Hamilton showed her that he had a gun inside his waistband. It neither confirms nor
negates whether Hamilton was armed in the manner that the associate described. See
Hampton, 109 S.W.3d at 441.
The loss-prevention officer’s testimony that she did not see whether Hamilton
had a firearm likewise does not support a lesser-included offense instruction. A
witness’s failure to see something is not affirmative evidence; thus, it cannot negate
an element of the greater offense. See Barnett v. State, 344 S.W.3d 6, 16 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d). As a result, the trial court did not err in refusing
to submit a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery. See
Cavazos, 382 S.W.3d at 385; Sweed, 351 S.W.3d at 68.
II. Hearing on Motion for New Trial
Hamilton contends that the trial court improperly denied him a hearing on his
motion for new trial.
10
A. Standard of review and applicable law
A defendant has a right to move for a new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21; Drew
v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Cooks v. State, 190 S.W.3d
84, 86–87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005), aff’d, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). A criminal defendant does not, however, have an “absolute right” to a
hearing on his motion for new trial. Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). We review the denial of a hearing on a motion for new trial for
an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the trial court’s ruling falls outside the
zone of reasonable disagreement. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009). The failure to hear the motion constitutes an abuse of discretion only if
the motion and accompanying affidavits (1) raise matters which are not determinable
from the record, and (2) establish reasonable grounds showing that the defendant
could potentially be entitled to relief. Id. at 338–39.
The defendant must support the motion for new trial with one or more
affidavits that set forth the factual basis for the relief sought. Id.; see Wallace v.
State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The defendant need not
establish a prima facie case for a new trial; a hearing on the motion for new trial is
warranted if the motion raises fact issues showing that reasonable grounds exist for
granting a new trial. Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 107–08; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 40.001; Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d at 201–02. The hearing’s purpose is to give the
11
defendant an opportunity to fully develop the issues raised in his motion (1) so that
the trial court can decide whether the case should be retried and (2) to prepare a
record for presenting issues on appeal if relief is denied. Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 338.
The trial court must grant a defendant’s motion for new trial “where material
evidence favorable to the accused has been discovered since trial.” TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 40.001. This showing requires proof that (1) the defendant did not know
about the newly discovered evidence until after trial; (2) the defendant’s failure to
discover the new evidence before then did not result from a lack of due diligence;
(3) the new evidence is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative,
collateral, or impeaching; and (4) the new evidence is probably true and probably
will bring about a different result in a new trial. Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 108.
Conversely, a defendant is not entitled to a new trial to procure evidence that was
known and accessible to him at the time of trial, even if defense counsel did not learn
about the evidence until later. Drew, 743 S.W.2d at 227 n.14.
B. Analysis
Hamilton’s motion does not satisfy his burden to show that reasonable
grounds exist for a new trial. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. art. 40.001. The affidavits
from Hamilton’s mother and wife concern his difficult childhood, and his diagnoses
of bipolar disorder and attention deficit disorder. Hamilton’s brother attested that
Hamilton did not have a gun when he entered the Walmart and did not usually carry
12
a gun. The motion does not suggest that the evidence provided in its support was
unknown or unavailable to Hamilton at the time of trial. For this reason, we hold
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on
Hamilton’s motion for new trial. See State v. Fury, 186 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); Garza v. State, 425 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (holding trial court did not abuse
discretion in denying motion for new trial where evidence was potentially
discoverable at the outset).
CONCLUSION
We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit a jury question on
robbery as a lesser-included offense. We further hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on Hamilton’s motion for new trial.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Lloyd.
Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
13