Issac Mendez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 20, 2008·No. 02-07-00024-CR·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-024-CR

ISSAC MENDEZ                                                                   APPELLANT

                                                   V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                               STATE

------------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

------------

I.  Introduction

Appellant Issac Mendez appeals his convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity and murder.  In one point, Issac contends that the convictions are based on uncorroborated accomplice witness testimony, and, therefore, insupportable.  We will affirm.


II.  Factual and Procedural Background

At approximately 3:26 in the early morning hours of June 26, 2005, there was a drive-by shooting in east Fort Worth.  Four people were shot.  One of those four, Dianette Sanchez, a mother of three young children, later died from her injuries.

In late September 2005, the police arrested three people in connection with the shootingCMonica Gauna, Brian Hernandez, and Issac Mendez.  Monica accepted a plea bargain wherein she agreed to testify against Issac and Brian in exchange for ten years of community supervision.  At trial, Monica testified that she directed Issac, the driver, to the house where the shooting occurred. Brian was also in the car.  She stated that they initially drove by the house to confirm that people were home, and that, in fact, they saw several people in the front yard of the house.  Monica said that Issac went around the block, pulled out a gun, and gave it to Brian.  According to Monica, Issac then drove back by the house as Brian opened fire on the crowd. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Issac guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity and of murder.  After the punishment hearing, the jury assessed a life sentence against Issac on each count, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury=s findings.  Issac now appeals.


III.  Testimony From an Accomplice

A.     The Accomplice Witness Rule

Article 38.14 of the code of criminal procedure establishes that Aa conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.@  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 2005).

In determining whether an accomplice witness=s testimony is corroborated, the appellate court must eliminate all accomplice evidence from the record and determine whether the other inculpatory facts and circumstances in evidence tend to connect the appellant to the offense.  Munoz v. State, 853 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).  An appellate court is to look for corroboration in all non-accomplice evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense.  Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Adams v. State, 180 S.W.3d 386, 415 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2005, no pet.).


Furthermore, such evidence may be either circumstantial or direct, and apparently insignificant incriminating circumstances may sometimes afford satisfactory evidence of corroboration.  Munoz, 853 S.W.2d at 559; Reed, 744 at 126.  For example, evidence merely showing the motive or opportunity of the accused to commit the crime is insufficient alone to corroborate the accomplice witness.  Reed, 744 S.W.2d at 127.  It may, however, be considered in connection with other evidence tending to connect the accused with the crime.  Id. 

Corroborative evidence need not establish an appellant=s guilt of the charged offense nor directly link the appellant to the offense, but is sufficient if it tends to connect the appellant to the offense.  Munoz, 853 S.W.2d at 559; Reed, 744 at 126.  Therefore, we apply the Atending to connect@ standard of review, rather than the traditional standards for legal and factual sufficiency, when reviewing evidence for compliance with article 38.14.  Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

B.     Monica=s Accomplice Witness Testimony

Monica

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Issac Mendez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Issac Mendez v. State (Issac Mendez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solomon v. State
49 S.W.3d 356 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Adams v. State
180 S.W.3d 386 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Reed v. State
744 S.W.2d 112 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Munoz v. State
853 S.W.2d 558 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)