GLOVER, MICHAEL DONELL v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: PD-0514-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0514-24

MICHAEL DONELL GLOVER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS KAUFMAN COUNTY

WALKER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCHENCK, P.J., and FINLEY and PARKER, JJ., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I agree with the Court that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant Michael

Donell Glover’s conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, namely, his pocket

knife. A pocket knife, although not “a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or

adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury,” can be something “that

in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.”

See TEX. PENAL CODE Ann. § 1.07(a)(17). 2

I write separately because Appellant’s “use” of the knife is somewhat confusing.

Rather than point the knife at the complainant Parks and directly threaten him to let

Appellant go with the stolen Buc-ee’s bag, Appellant used his knife to cut the strap of the

bag. Indeed, Parks testified that Appellant did not point his knife at him or swing the knife

at him. But Parks’s testimony is unclear about what Appellant did with the knife aside from

cut the strap. There was no explanation how cutting the strap would have helped Appellant

steal the bag, nor is there an explanation about how the cutting was done. How close were

Appellant and Parks while Appellant was cutting the bag? Was Appellant carefully cutting

the strap with the tip and blade pointed at himself? Or was he cutting the strap with the blade

towards Parks? How close did the knife get to Parks? These questions are important because

how the knife was used could make a difference in whether his pocket knife was, “in the

manner of its use or intended use . . . capable of causing . . . serious bodily injury.”

The Buc-ee’s surveillance footage does not shed light on the answer. Although the

video clearly captured Appellant arriving at the Buc-ee’s, the theft inside of the store, his

leaving the store and Parks’s pursuit, and Appellant’s eventual return to his car, the video

unfortunately does not capture the encounter between Appellant and Parks. But it can be

pieced together from the photographs of the bag. State’s Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 show the

Buc-ee’s bag and the cut strap: 3 4 5 6 7 8

From the photographs of the Buc-ee’s bag, the strap that was cut is not a longer

shoulder strap; instead, the strap that is cut is one of two hand straps on each side of the bag.

The hand strap is not very large, only running across a portion of the side of the bag.

Although Parks did not explain specifically how Appellant used the knife, if Appellant and

Parks were each holding one of the straps, then Appellant’s act of cutting the hand strap held

by Parks would have necessarily put Appellant’s knife close to Parks’s hand.

What if Appellant and Parks were each holding separate straps, and Appellant cut the

strap that he was holding? Cutting the strap that he was holding would have been counter-

productive towards facilitating the theft of the bag because it would have given Parks an

intact strap to hold and left Appellant with a damaged strap. And if Appellant and Parks were

holding on to the same strap of the bag, the knife would have been in even closer proximity

to Parks’s hand. It may have been one thing if the strap Appellant used his knife to cut was

a long shoulder strap on the end closest to himself. But Appellant cut a hand strap towards

the middle of the strap close to where Parks’s hand must have been. Certainly, if the knife

was capable of cutting a nylon strap, it was capable of cutting Parks’s hand.

I believe the evidence is therefore sufficient to show a deadly weapon from the knife’s

“manner of use,” even if Appellant’s only intended use of the knife was to cut the strap.

Assuming that the “intended use” was solely to cut the strap and not to threaten Parks, cutting

the strap right next to Parks’s hand was certainly “capable of causing . . . serious bodily

injury.” 9

With these thoughts, I join the opinion of the Court.

Filed: April 16, 2025 Publish