Anthony Wayne Scott Dawkins v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-09-00217-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 6, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Anthony Wayne Dawkins was indicted for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A jury found him guilty on both counts, sentencing him to twenty-five years of imprisonment for each offense, to be served concurrently. Dawkins appeals on three grounds: the sufficiency of the evidence for both charges and a claim of violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The events leading to the charges occurred on October 10, 2007, when Christopher King visited a drug dealer for a haircut but ended up gambling at the dealer's home. After winning a $2 pot, Dawkins became aggressive and demanded King return the money. Following King's refusal, Dawkins left but returned shortly with a handgun, shot King six times, and stole King’s car keys before fleeing. Police and paramedics responded to a 9-1-1 call, finding King critically injured. Evidence collected included fingerprints from the abandoned vehicle, which matched Dawkins. Detective Henz later secured the crime scene and collected additional evidence, including fingerprints from the car. A fingerprint examiner testified about the process of identifying the prints against databases. The court ultimately reformed the judgment and affirmed the conviction.

Mallen testified regarding Exhibit 39, a sealed envelope containing four 'lift cards' (State’s Exhibits 39A-D) used to store fingerprints collected at a crime scene. He identified two usable prints, 39A and 39C, and matched 39C to the Appellant after searching the AFIS system, which yielded the Appellant as the top candidate. Tammy McLean confirmed this match after conducting a second comparison with fingerprints taken directly from the Appellant, labeled as State’s Exhibit 40. 

Detective Henz interviewed King, a shooting victim, three days post-incident due to his injuries. King described the shooter and provided a list of individuals present at the crime scene. When shown photographs, including one of the Appellant, King immediately identified the Appellant as the shooter and later formalized this identification in a witness statement. 

The Appellant raised a Double Jeopardy challenge, asserting that his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault constituted multiple punishments for the same offense, which the State conceded. The legal framework for assessing whether two offenses are the same involves analyzing the elements in the charging instrument through the 'cognate-pleadings approach,' focusing on the allegations rather than solely on statutory definitions. This determination is a legal question.

An offense is classified as a lesser included offense under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure if it meets one of the following criteria: (1) it can be proven with the same or fewer facts than those required for the charged offense; (2) it involves a less serious injury or risk to the same entity; (3) it requires a less culpable mental state; or (4) it constitutes an attempt to commit the charged offense. In the case at hand, the Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery (Count I) and aggravated assault (Count II). The analysis concluded that Count II is a lesser included offense of Count I, resulting in a double jeopardy violation for the Appellant's conviction for aggravated assault. Consequently, the appropriate remedy is to affirm the conviction for the more serious aggravated robbery and vacate the aggravated assault conviction. The Appellant was sentenced to twenty-five years for both offenses, but the aggravated robbery, being a first-degree felony, is deemed more serious. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery, while vacating the aggravated assault conviction.

Regarding issues of legal and factual sufficiency, the Appellant argued that the evidence did not support the convictions. However, since the double jeopardy violation was established, the arguments pertaining to the aggravated assault conviction became moot. The court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence only for aggravated robbery. It referenced a recent decision from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which clarified that there is no meaningful distinction between legal and factual sufficiency standards. Therefore, reviewing courts are to apply only the legal sufficiency standard, which requires evaluating evidence in favor of the jury's verdict to determine if there is a rational basis for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reviewing court must defer to the jury's credibility determinations regarding witness testimony, as the jury is the sole trier of fact. Conflicting inferences in the record are resolved in favor of the prosecution, and the reviewing court evaluates the sufficiency of the evidence based on all evidence presented, applying the standard from Jackson v. Virginia. Under Texas law, robbery involves theft with the intent to control another's property while causing bodily injury or instilling fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Aggravated robbery occurs when, in addition to the robbery, serious bodily injury is caused, or a deadly weapon is used or exhibited. A firearm qualifies as a deadly weapon under the Texas Penal Code. The essential element of aggravated robbery includes the threat of imminent bodily injury or death, which can be established by the mere presence of a deadly weapon.

In this case, the appellant was charged with aggravated robbery involving a firearm, specifically for shooting Christopher King during the commission of theft. The indictment presented two alternative theories, but only the first was submitted for jury consideration. The State needed to prove that the appellant intentionally or knowingly caused serious bodily injury to King by shooting him with a firearm while committing theft. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction, claiming the verdict was manifestly unjust. However, it is undisputed that King was shot six times on October 11, 2007, with a handgun, resulting in serious injuries, and that this occurred during a robbery.

The critical issue is whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the Appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant contends that the identification made by witness King was undermined by Detective Henz's testimony, which indicated that King initially claimed not to know the shooter. However, King later positively identified the Appellant as the shooter from photographs one month after the incident. The jury holds the exclusive authority to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence presented. Although King initially stated he did not know the shooter, he provided a description, suggesting he had seen the shooter long enough for reliable identification. Additionally, King testified that he recognized the Appellant as the man involved in a dice game who shot him after a dispute over money. Supporting evidence includes testimony from Officer Wallace and fingerprint examiners, who confirmed that the Appellant's fingerprints matched those found in King's car. A rational juror could conclude that the evidence was adequate to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Appellant's arguments are rejected, and the conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery are affirmed.