Dalton Bryce Massie-Weaver v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 22, 2023
• Docket: 07-23-00051-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00051-CR No. 07-23-00052-CR

DALTON BRYCE MASSIE-WEAVER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court Nos. CR15062 & CR14611, Honorable Bryan T. Bufkin, Presiding

June 22, 2023 CONCURRING OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

I concur in the result but would add in response to the issue raised by appellant

concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. In his brief, appellant contends that the

evidence was insufficient to support a deadly weapon finding because it showed only that

he merely possessed a deadly weapon. See Ex parte Petty, 833 S.W.2d 145, 145–46

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc); Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. Crim. App.

1992) (en banc) (per curiam). Indeed, the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that “in order to ‘use’ a deadly

weapon for affirmative finding purposes, the weapon must be utilized to achieve an

intended result, namely, the commission of a felony offense separate and distinct from

‘mere’ possession.” Narron, 835 S.W.2d at 644. More recently, that court added that a

deadly weapon finding requires only “some facilitation connection between the weapon

and” the associated felony. See Plummer v. State, 410 S.W.3d 855, 865 (Tex. Crim. App.

2020).

Here, the record shows that, both at the time of appellant’s removal from his cell

as well as several times during appellant’s incarceration, appellant issued threats of

violence against several correctional officers, including, among many other things,

threatening to stab them in their necks with a shank. Such evidence demonstrates more

than mere possession of the deadly weapon. See Herring v. State, 202 S.W.3d 764, 766

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (concluding that the appellant’s admission that he possessed the

knife, coupled with his threat to kill and his taking of the money, was sufficient evidence

of “use”).

Here, based on appellant’s specific and continuous threats of violence against the

jail staff and reference to a shank, the record shows more than mere possession of a

deadly weapon. Based on this evidence and analysis, I would find the evidence sufficient

to support the trial court’s entry of a deadly weapon finding. I respectfully concur in the

result.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish. 2