Charles William Bryant ( 2020 )

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed April 10, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00033-CR
CHARLES WILLIAM BRYANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR17-2311
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Whitehill, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Following a bench trial, Charles William Bryant was found guilty of
unlawfully carrying a weapon. In a single issue, appellant argues the evidence is
insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
On December 17, 2017, appellant was riding in the front passenger seat in a
car that a police officer pulled over for speeding. The driver of the car was
appellant’s girlfriend and mother of his child. The driver told the officer that the car
belonged to her mother. Appellant confirmed the car belonged to the driver’s
mother; an officer testified appellant told him: “It’s in her name, it’s her truck, all
referencing to the mother.” The police had no reason to believe the vehicle belonged
to appellant or he had control over it.
Appellant was detained for an outstanding warrant. After smelling marijuana,
the police searched the vehicle and found a firearm under the passenger seat and a
magazine in the center console. Appellant informed the officer the firearm belonged
to him. Appellant stated he carried the handgun for protection while at the nightclub
where they spent the evening. Appellant did not have a license to carry a concealed
firearm.
The driver’s mother, Charles Ann Arkansas, testified on behalf of the defense.
Documents associated with the purchase of the vehicle were in her name. She
admitted that she purchased the vehicle, but explained the vehicle was for appellant
because he needed a car but lacked sufficient credit to make the purchase. She
testified she gave the vehicle to appellant immediately upon its purchase, and
appellant took possession at that time. She never used the vehicle herself, and she
considered appellant the vehicle’s owner.
The State charged appellant with unlawfully carrying a weapon, a Class A
misdemeanor. A person commits the offense of unlawfully carrying a handgun if he
intentionally or knowingly carries on or about his person a handgun and is not on
the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control or inside of or
directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under
the person’s control. TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.02(a). Appellant pleaded not guilty,
–2–
but the trial court found him guilty of the offense. On appeal, appellant argues the
evidence is legally insufficient to find him guilty of unlawfully carrying a weapon
because he was inside a motor vehicle he owned or controlled.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on a criminal offense
for which the State has the burden of proof under the single sufficiency standard set
forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621,
624–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Under this standard, the relevant question is
whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
This standard accounts for the factfinder’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony,
to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate
facts. Id. Therefore, in analyzing legal sufficiency, we determine whether the
necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force
of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id.
We do not resolve conflicts of fact, weigh evidence, or evaluate the credibility
of the witnesses as this is the function of the trier of fact. See Dewberry v. State, 4
S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Instead we determine whether both the
explicit and implicit findings of the trier of fact are rational by viewing all the
evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the adjudication. Adelman
v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418, 422 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). When the record supports
–3–
conflicting inferences, we presume the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of
the verdict and defer to that determination. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. The
factfinder is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and their testimony’s weight.
See Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
On appeal, appellant argues the State failed to show he was not inside of a
motor vehicle he owned or controlled. It is uncontested the gun belonged to
appellant, and he intentionally or knowingly carried it. It also is uncontested that
Charles Ann Arkansas purchased the vehicle and the associated documents were in
her name.
The trial court heard conflicting evidence about whether appellant owned or
controlled the vehicle. During the traffic stop, both appellant and the driver told the
officers the vehicle belonged to the driver’s mother. An officer testified he had no
reason to believe the vehicle belonged to appellant or appellant had control over it.
However, at trial, Arkansas testified appellant had possession of the vehicle since
she purchased it, she never used the vehicle herself, and she considered appellant the
vehicle’s owner. The trial court, as the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and
the weight to be given to their testimony, could have Arkansas owned and controlled
the vehicle, and appellant did not.
After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude the evidence is legally
sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion the State met its burden to prove
appellant unlawfully carried a weapon. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
–4–
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190033F.U05
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARLES WILLIAM BRYANT, On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant Law, Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR17-2311.
No. 05-19-00033-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Bridges and Whitehill
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 10th day of April, 2020.
–6–