Anthony Duane Riley v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: July 15, 2026
• Docket: 09-24-00330-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00330-CR ________________

ANTHONY DUANE RILEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15156JD ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Anthony Duane Riley appeals his conviction for aggravated

robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. In his sole issue on appeal, Riley

complains the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he

used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing a robbery against the

complainant. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

1 BACKGROUND

A grand jury indicted Riley for aggravated robbery, alleging that Riley, the

defendant:

did while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, intentionally and knowingly threaten or place [Carol], 1 in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, and the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a machete[.]

During a jury trial, Officer Frank Erimias, who was with the Kirbyville Police

Department when the alleged offense occurred, testified that he was on patrol when

he received a call that there was a “suspicious person, black male, wearing a white

hoodie, dark pants that was exhibiting some type of weapon[]” at the Family Dollar

Store. After learning the suspect took money and left and that a robbery had

occurred, Erimias proceeded to the store and requested additional units that quickly

responded. Erimias spoke to the store clerk and manager, who both provided a

written statement describing the suspect, a weapon they believed Riley had during

the robbery, and the bag of money he took along with a Scope product.

Erimias went to the location where a man who matched the description of the

suspect had been identified and apprehended. The man in custody was identified as

1 We use pseudonyms to refer to the victims, including the complainant, to protect all victims’ privacy. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”). 2 Riley. Upon arrival where Riley was being held, Erimias observed a white hoodie

sweatshirt next to Riley and there was a “sickle-shape, machete-type knife[]” fifteen

to twenty feet away from where Riley was lying. Erimias explained that the machete-

type knife had a handle like one seen on a short-barreled shotgun with a bird’s head

grip on it and a blade that came down and sickled in like a brush cutter. Erimias also

found and collected the plastic bag from the store that contained $1,361.95 and the

Scope product. The jury viewed a video recording from Erimias’ body camera,

which captured the events. The jury also viewed the weapon recovered from the

scene, and Erimias explained that one of the women thought the weapon was a knife

and the other woman thought it was a sawed-off shotgun. Erimias described the

machete knife as being a “scary-looking weapon[,]” and he understood how the

handle could have been mistaken for some form of firearm. Erimias testified that the

knife was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Erimias explained that

although Riley had been nice and polite to the women at the store, Erimias charged

Riley with aggravated robbery because Riley scared the women with a deadly

weapon and stole money from them and could have killed them.

Deputy Shannon Davis Jr. was working patrol with the Jasper County

Sheriff’s Office when he responded to a call about a robbery at the Family Dollar

Store in Kirbyville. While checking the surrounding area for the suspect who

reportedly had a possible weapon, Davis found and tased Riley, who matched the

3 suspect’s description. Davis found a large blade that was commonly referred to as a

machete stuffed in Riley’s pants with the handle sticking out. Davis identified the

blade that was admitted into evidence as the blade Riley was carrying on the night

of the robbery. Davis also found a pack of Scope gum on the ground where Riley

had been lying. The jury viewed a video recording taken from Davis’s body camera.

Carol, the manager of the Family Dollar Store in Kirbyville, testified that she

and Barbara were working on the night the robbery occurred. Carol explained that

as they were about to close the store, a man wearing a white hoodie and black pants

put a pack of Scope gum on the counter and told her to “give me all the money.”

When Carol “kind of laughed” and told the man “that’s not funny[,]” the man pulled

his hoodie up and patted his side, causing Carol to notice that he had a big, wooden

handle sticking out of his waistband. Carol explained she was nervous because it

looked like a homemade handle of a knife, and noticing the big handle of the knife

scared Carol because she thought something was going to happen to Barbara. Carol

stated that Barbara believed the man had a sawed-off shotgun, and she agreed that

the man never took the weapon out of his pants or threatened to cut her.

Carol was scared and believed that the man would hurt her or Barbara if she

did not do what he said, but Carol stayed calm due to her training. Carol explained

that the man did not verbally threaten her or state he was going to use the knife, but

he had his hand on the knife and patted his side, which was scary “enough[]” to

4 know they were in danger because Carol knew how much damage knives could

cause. Carol gave the man the money in the drawers and the top safe and put the

money in a bag, and when she told the man there were cameras and it would take ten

minutes to open the bottom safe, he pulled down his black COVID mask and

revealed he had a full, peppered beard. The man took the bag of money and Scope

and “said thank you and then walked out.” Carol immediately called 911, and the

police arrived before she completed the call. The jury viewed the video recording of

the robbery captured on the store’s surveillance cameras.

Barbara testified that she was working as a cashier at the Family Dollar Store

when the robbery occurred. Barbara explained that a man came to the register to buy

a package of travel Scope and then asked her to hand him all the money, raised up

his hoodie, showed Barbara what she thought was a pistol in the waistband of his

pants, patted the handle, and demanded money. Barbara described the man as

wearing a dark-colored COVID mask, white hoodie, and dark-colored jogging pants.

Barbara explained that during the robbery, she tried to keep calm and thought about

whether she would make it home to her children if the man used the weapon.

Barbara explained that the man did not show the weapon “too good or too

often[,]” but he showed it twice leading her to believe the weapon was a pistol grip

or a grip of a sawed-off shotgun. Barbara testified that although the man never pulled

the weapon out of his waistband, she did not need to know exactly what the weapon

5 was to feel threatened or fear being hurt. Barbara stated that the handle of the knife

that was admitted into evidence looked like the handle of the weapon she saw in the

man’s waistband when he committed the robbery. Barbara also stated she felt scared

and threatened even though the man was nice and polite during the robbery. Barbara

explained that the store had surveillance cameras in the register area. The video

recording from the store’s surveillance cameras supports Carol’s and Barbara’s

testimonies that Riley showed them a weapon and patted the weapon when he

demanded that they give him all the money.

The jury found Riley guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment

and assessed Riley’s punishment as a habitual offender at thirty-five years of

confinement.

ANALYSIS

In his sole issue, Riley complains that the evidence is legally insufficient to

support the jury’s finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of

committing a robbery against the complainant.

We review complaints of legal insufficiency under the standard in Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). See Fernandez v. State, 479 S.W.3d 835,

837-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Under Jackson, we ask “whether, after viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson,

6 443 U.S. at 319 (citation omitted); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the jury’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in

testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the above

evidence. See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation

omitted). We presume the jury resolved any conflicts in testimony in favor of the

verdict. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13. We treat direct and circumstantial

evidence equally and “consider the combined and cumulative force of the evidence”

viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See Clayton v. State, 235

S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation omitted).

A person commits the offense of robbery if, in the course of committing theft,

he intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily

injury or death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2). A person commits the

offense of aggravated robbery if he commits robbery and uses or exhibits a deadly

weapon. Id. § 29.03(a)(2). A “deadly weapon” is “anything that in the manner of its

use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. §

1.07(a)(17)(B). An alleged robber’s implicit threats may lead to a victim’s being

placed in fear so long as the defendant’s actions are “of such nature as in reason and

common experience is likely to induce a person to part with property against his

will,” because any perceived threat of imminent bodily injury will support a finding

7 that the victim was threatened or placed in fear. Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137,

138-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

While a knife is not a deadly weapon per se, the State can establish that a knife

is a deadly weapon by showing that “the person using it intends to use it in a way in

which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Magana v.

State, 230 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d). In cases

where there is no sustained injury, the State must rely on the following factors to

establish that a knife is a deadly weapon: (1) the size, shape, and sharpness of the

blade; (2) the manner of the knife’s use or intended use; (3) evidence of its life-

threatening capabilities; (4) the distance between the knife and the victim; and (5)

any words spoken by the person using the knife. Id. The jury may consider the size,

shape, and sharpness of the knife in determining whether the knife is capable of

causing death or serious bodily injury. Clark v. State, 444 S.W.3d 671, 678 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d).

The jury may also use common sense and apply common knowledge and

experience when giving effect to the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from

the evidence. Gerron v. State, 524 S.W.3d 308, 318 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet.

ref’d). A person “uses or exhibits a deadly weapon” under the aggravated robbery

statute if he employs the weapon in any manner that “facilitates the associated

felony.” McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing

8 Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). The word “use”

is commonly employed to describe conduct in which the verb’s object–a deadly

weapon–is utilized to achieve a purpose, which means the deadly weapon must be

utilized, employed, or applied to achieve the intended result of committing a felony

offense. Patterson, 769 S.W.2d at 940-41.

Riley complains the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s deadly

weapon finding because Carol and Barbara never saw a blade and he did not brandish

or gesture with the knife, make any threats, or try to close the distance between

himself and the employees who were separated by the sales counter. Riley argues

the evidence does not show he “used” a deadly weapon and only shows he “twice

patted a concealed handle while calmly asking for money.” We disagree.

Carol testified that she saw a big, wooden handle that looked like a knife

handle sticking out of Riley’s waistband and that Riley patted the handle, causing

her to be scared and upset. Carol knew they were in danger when she saw the knife,

and she believed Riley would hurt her or Barbara if she did not do what he said and

give him the money.

Barbara felt scared and threatened when Riley raised his hoodie and twice

showed her what she thought was a firearm in the waistband of his pants. Barbara

explained that Riley patted the handle of the weapon when he demanded the money.

9 Erimias testified that he found a “sickle-shape, machete-type knife[]” fifteen

to twenty feet away from where Riley was lying. Erimias understood how the handle

of the knife could have been mistaken for a firearm. Erimias testified that the knife

was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Erimias charged Riley with

aggravated robbery because Riley scared Carol and Barbara with a deadly weapon

while stealing money.

Based on this record, we hold that due to the exposure of the handle in Riley’s

waistband and Riley’s tapping on the handle while demanding money during the

robbery, the jury could have rationally concluded that Riley did not merely possess

a knife but partially exposed the handle of the knife during the criminal transaction

and used its presence to cause fear of imminent bodily injury or death in Carol and

Barbara to reduce the likelihood they would resist his demands. Thus, the evidence

supports the jury’s finding that Riley used a deadly weapon by employing the

weapon in a manner that facilitated Carol’s and Barbara’s cooperation so he could

achieve his intended result of committing a robbery. See McCain, 22 S.W.3d at 502-

03; Patterson, 769 S.W.2d at 940-41; Brown v. State, No. 09-10-00233-CR, 2011

WL 1204016, at **1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 30, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication). Additionally, Erimias testified that the knife was

capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, and the jury viewed the knife

10 during trial and was able to observe its characteristics and determine whether it was

capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. See Clark, 444 S.W.3d at 678.

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, we

conclude the jury could have found the essential elements of the crime of aggravated

robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Accordingly, we

conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding that Riley

used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing the robbery. We

overrule Riley’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on May 13, 2026 Opinion Delivered July 15, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.