Oscar Olivares v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-09-00938-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 19, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Oscar Olivares was indicted for aggravated robbery alongside his brother and tried as an accomplice under Texas law. He was ultimately convicted of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense, and sentenced to 40 years in prison. On appeal, Olivares contended that the evidence was factually insufficient to support his conviction. 

The trial established that on May 22, 2008, Olivares visited Erika Rodriguez's home but did not leave when asked. After spending hours waiting, he accompanied Rodriguez and her roommate, Chante Jones, to dinner. Upon returning, Olivares's brother entered the home with a gun, ordered the women into a bedroom, and Olivares tied them up. Jones testified to witnessing Olivares coming and going from a spare bedroom filled with stolen property. Olivares's brother shot Rodriguez in the head and attempted to shoot Jones, but the gun malfunctioned. Both men fled after the attack.

Jones escaped and called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter. Officer M. Agee, the first responder, conducted a preliminary investigation, noting a small rope in the bedroom but failing to collect physical evidence. Sgt. G. Urie later interviewed the victims, who identified Olivares and his brother from photo arrays. The appeal court affirmed Olivares's conviction, indicating that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Olivares was indicted for aggravated robbery but was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, receiving a 40-year prison sentence. He appealed, arguing that the State did not provide sufficient evidence for his conviction. Specifically, he claimed the credibility of State witnesses was undermined by inconsistencies in their testimonies and the absence of physical evidence. Olivares contended that since the jury acquitted him of aggravated robbery, they could not convict him of the lesser charge of aggravated assault based on the same testimony. 

The review standard for sufficiency of evidence requires that the court assess whether a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, affording deference to the jury's credibility determinations. Olivares pointed to discrepancies in witness accounts regarding their living arrangements, details of a dinner trip, gunshot counts, and their interactions with law enforcement as reasons for questioning their credibility. He argued that these issues, along with the lack of physical evidence collected at the crime scene, made the evidence factually insufficient to support his conviction.

Jones initially claimed she lived with Rodriguez due to proximity to her school, but later admitted to dropping out months prior. While Jones stated only she and Rodriguez resided in the house, Rodriguez testified that another young woman lived there too. Jones denied that Rodriguez worked during their cohabitation, while Rodriguez asserted she was employed, albeit laid off without recalling the details. Regarding a dinner outing, Rodriguez claimed Jones and Olivares returned with food after she got out of bed, whereas Jones testified that she, Olivares, and a friend went to a fast food restaurant. Contradictions emerged when Sgt. Urie indicated Jones initially stated Rodriguez accompanied the group.

In recounting the crime, Jones alleged Olivares's brother fired at her, including shots aimed at her head, but the gun did not discharge. Rodriguez recalled hearing two shots, one aimed at her. Jones claimed they were tied up together, while Rodriguez asserted they were tied separately. Sgt. Urie's testimony highlighted discrepancies in their accounts, including Rodriguez initially claiming Jones was her niece and later denying any relation, as well as inconsistencies regarding Olivares's identity.

Despite these inconsistencies, both witnesses provided largely consistent testimony regarding the assault, including details about the gun and Olivares's brother's actions. Olivares's challenges to the evidence relied on witness credibility, which the court defers to the factfinder. Testimony established the elements of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, supporting Olivares's conviction.

Olivares also argued the lack of corroborating physical evidence rendered the evidence factually insufficient. Although no physical evidence was collected, both Jones and Rodriguez identified Olivares as the attacker during trial and in a photo array. They described the weapon similarly, and there was uncontested testimony that Olivares's brother shot Rodriguez in the head.

Rodriguez testified about being threatened in her home with a gun, while Jones recounted that Olivares’s brother pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger three times without the gun firing. Hospital records confirmed Rodriguez's gunshot wound, with the bullet remaining in her scalp. Olivares argued that the absence of physical evidence rendered the jury's verdict unjust; however, the testimonies of Rodriguez and Jones were deemed sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault. The court stated that a victim's testimony can alone substantiate a guilty verdict, even in the absence of physical evidence. Olivares also contended that the jury's not guilty verdict on aggravated robbery undermined the conviction for aggravated assault, suggesting inconsistency in Rodriguez’s testimony. The court clarified that a jury may convict on lesser-included offenses if proven by the same or fewer facts than the charged offense, and that juries can choose to believe or disbelieve witness testimony. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial evidence sufficiently supported Olivares's conviction for aggravated assault and affirmed the trial court's judgment.