AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01103-CR
MATTHEW CORY TAYLOR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-84887-2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at
thirty years in prison. In a single issue, appellant now argues the evidence is
insufficient to establish his identity as the robber. As discussed below, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On the day in question, Anderson Walker was awakened in the early morning
hours by an unknown noise. When he opened his bedroom door to investigate, he
was held at gunpoint by an unknown white male in a black mask, and Destiny Jones,
the daughter of one of his acquaintances. Jones and the other intruder forced their way into Walker’s bedroom. The
masked male threatened to shoot Walker, forced him to the ground, and demanded
to know the location of Walker’s safe. Walker was then forced into his closet. After
the intruders left, Walker called 911.
Several items were taken from Walker’s home, including Walker’s keys,
wallet, one of his phones, a DVD player, a tablet, and several bottles of alcohol. The
case was assigned to Detective Mary Jung with the Plano Police Department.
Walker told Jung that the male, and possibly Jones, had been wearing a black
gaiter-type mask. Walker described the man as fairly tall, not super tall, but maybe
around 6 foot or so and weighed about 200 pounds. Walker was fairly confident that
the woman accompanying the man was Destinee Jones. According to Walker, Jones
had previously stolen about $800 from a safe in his apartment.
Detective Jung and the “intel unit” immediately began investigating and
through Jones’s Instagram account, learned that she appeared to be in a romantic
relationship with a white man named Matthew Taylor. They also discovered that
appellant drove a white Toyota Camry, lived less than one mile from Walker’s
apartment, and was photographed driving that Camry at a 7-Eleven near Walker’s
apartment shortly after the robbery.
Later that day, the police found the Toyota Camry at a motel in Richardson.
Appellant and Jones were arrested when they exited the motel. Appellant was found
with the keys to the Camry in his pocket, as well as a black gaiter mask matching
–2– the description of the one worn by the male robber. When the police searched the
Camry they found Walker’s stolen possessions, including his keys, DVD player,
phone, and tablet. They also found an airsoft gun and a backpack full of alcohol
bottles.
Detectives seized appellant’s phone and, pursuant to a warrant, extracted his
text messages. Detective Steve Sanders, who performed the extraction, discovered
that approximately one week prior to the robbery, appellant and Jones discussed
“hitting a lick” (committing a robbery) of a man Jones knew had a safe. During this
conversation, appellant warned Jones, “I ain’t trynna hit no lick on a petty ass
amount,” and she reassured him, “I told you I got a job. I know how much he got in
the safe, w[h]ere he keeps it and how to unlock it.”
Detective Sanders also discovered that shortly before appellant’s arrest at the
Richardson motel, appellant was texting numerous phone contacts, trying to sell
several “brand new alcohol bottles,” complete with pictures of the bottles. Walker
confirmed that the bottles matched those taken from his apartment.
Officer Logan Riley with the Garland Police Department testified that the
Plano Police Department reached out to him concerning his previous interactions
with appellant. Officer Riley said that he had interactions with Jones and appellant
on three occasions. Each time he interacted with them appellant was driving a white
Toyota Camry.
–3– The jury found appellant guilty as charged. After hearing punishment
evidence, the jury assessed punishment at thirty years in prison. This timely appeal
followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant’s complaint regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is confined to
the issue of identity. Specifically, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support
the jury’s finding that he committed the offense because he does not match Walker’s
description of the male who invaded Mr. Walker’s home, his fingerprints were not
found on the weapon, and there was no evidence establishing his physical presence
at the robbery’s location.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and determine whether any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We assume the fact finder resolved conflicts in the
testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that
supports the verdict. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
We defer to the trier of fact’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to
be given their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. Circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial
evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9,
–4– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The State may prove a defendant’s identity by either
direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that
evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The same
standard of review is used for both circumstantial and direct evidence cases. Hooper,
214 S.W.3d at 13.
Aggravated robbery incorporates the elements of the lesser offense of robbery.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a). A person commits aggravated robbery if he
“places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death” or “uses or exhibits a
deadly weapon” while in the process of committing a robbery. TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 29.03(a). A person commits a robbery if, during the commission of a theft,
he places another in fear of bodily injury. Id. § 29.02(a); see also Burton v. State,
510 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.).
Appellant argues that he is far shorter and weighs less than the man Walker
described and there is no GPS data placing him at the scene of the crime. He further
relies on the absence of fingerprints on the weapon or any of the items taken from
Walker’s home. These arguments are misplaced.
“The lack of physical or forensic evidence . . . does not render the evidence
insufficient; the lack of such evidence is simply a factor for the jury to consider in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01103-CR
MATTHEW CORY TAYLOR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-84887-2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at
thirty years in prison. In a single issue, appellant now argues the evidence is
insufficient to establish his identity as the robber. As discussed below, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On the day in question, Anderson Walker was awakened in the early morning
hours by an unknown noise. When he opened his bedroom door to investigate, he
was held at gunpoint by an unknown white male in a black mask, and Destiny Jones,
the daughter of one of his acquaintances. Jones and the other intruder forced their way into Walker’s bedroom. The
masked male threatened to shoot Walker, forced him to the ground, and demanded
to know the location of Walker’s safe. Walker was then forced into his closet. After
the intruders left, Walker called 911.
Several items were taken from Walker’s home, including Walker’s keys,
wallet, one of his phones, a DVD player, a tablet, and several bottles of alcohol. The
case was assigned to Detective Mary Jung with the Plano Police Department.
Walker told Jung that the male, and possibly Jones, had been wearing a black
gaiter-type mask. Walker described the man as fairly tall, not super tall, but maybe
around 6 foot or so and weighed about 200 pounds. Walker was fairly confident that
the woman accompanying the man was Destinee Jones. According to Walker, Jones
had previously stolen about $800 from a safe in his apartment.
Detective Jung and the “intel unit” immediately began investigating and
through Jones’s Instagram account, learned that she appeared to be in a romantic
relationship with a white man named Matthew Taylor. They also discovered that
appellant drove a white Toyota Camry, lived less than one mile from Walker’s
apartment, and was photographed driving that Camry at a 7-Eleven near Walker’s
apartment shortly after the robbery.
Later that day, the police found the Toyota Camry at a motel in Richardson.
Appellant and Jones were arrested when they exited the motel. Appellant was found
with the keys to the Camry in his pocket, as well as a black gaiter mask matching
–2– the description of the one worn by the male robber. When the police searched the
Camry they found Walker’s stolen possessions, including his keys, DVD player,
phone, and tablet. They also found an airsoft gun and a backpack full of alcohol
bottles.
Detectives seized appellant’s phone and, pursuant to a warrant, extracted his
text messages. Detective Steve Sanders, who performed the extraction, discovered
that approximately one week prior to the robbery, appellant and Jones discussed
“hitting a lick” (committing a robbery) of a man Jones knew had a safe. During this
conversation, appellant warned Jones, “I ain’t trynna hit no lick on a petty ass
amount,” and she reassured him, “I told you I got a job. I know how much he got in
the safe, w[h]ere he keeps it and how to unlock it.”
Detective Sanders also discovered that shortly before appellant’s arrest at the
Richardson motel, appellant was texting numerous phone contacts, trying to sell
several “brand new alcohol bottles,” complete with pictures of the bottles. Walker
confirmed that the bottles matched those taken from his apartment.
Officer Logan Riley with the Garland Police Department testified that the
Plano Police Department reached out to him concerning his previous interactions
with appellant. Officer Riley said that he had interactions with Jones and appellant
on three occasions. Each time he interacted with them appellant was driving a white
Toyota Camry.
–3– The jury found appellant guilty as charged. After hearing punishment
evidence, the jury assessed punishment at thirty years in prison. This timely appeal
followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant’s complaint regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is confined to
the issue of identity. Specifically, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support
the jury’s finding that he committed the offense because he does not match Walker’s
description of the male who invaded Mr. Walker’s home, his fingerprints were not
found on the weapon, and there was no evidence establishing his physical presence
at the robbery’s location.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and determine whether any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We assume the fact finder resolved conflicts in the
testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that
supports the verdict. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
We defer to the trier of fact’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight to
be given their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. Circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial
evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9,
–4– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The State may prove a defendant’s identity by either
direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that
evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The same
standard of review is used for both circumstantial and direct evidence cases. Hooper,
214 S.W.3d at 13.
Aggravated robbery incorporates the elements of the lesser offense of robbery.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a). A person commits aggravated robbery if he
“places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death” or “uses or exhibits a
deadly weapon” while in the process of committing a robbery. TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 29.03(a). A person commits a robbery if, during the commission of a theft,
he places another in fear of bodily injury. Id. § 29.02(a); see also Burton v. State,
510 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.).
Appellant argues that he is far shorter and weighs less than the man Walker
described and there is no GPS data placing him at the scene of the crime. He further
relies on the absence of fingerprints on the weapon or any of the items taken from
Walker’s home. These arguments are misplaced.
“The lack of physical or forensic evidence . . . does not render the evidence
insufficient; the lack of such evidence is simply a factor for the jury to consider in
weighing all the evidence.” Hopkins v. State, No. 05-14-00146-CR, 2015 WL
3413582, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 28, 2015) (mem. op., not designated for
publication), aff’d, 487 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citations omitted).
–5– Furthermore, “[w]hat is not in evidence is irrelevant to a determination of the
sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. (citing Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 245
(Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). We defer to the jury’s determination concerning the weight
of the evidence. See Harrell v. State, 620 S.W.3d 910, at 913–14 (Tex. Crim. App.
2021). The credibility of Walker’s physical description of appellant was also for the
jury to decide. See Earls v. State, 707 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (any
discrepancies in the description of appellant’s clothing or appearance goes to the
weight and credibility of the witnesses); Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the
weight afforded their testimony); Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 917 (Tex. App.–
Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (jury alone decides whether to believe
eyewitness testimony, and it resolves any conflicts in the evidence).
The evidence shows appellant was in Jones’s company planning a robbery a
week before the offense. Appellant was in possession of Walker’s stolen property
and the robber’s disguise immediately after the offense. The jury may draw an
inference of guilt when a defendant is found in unexplained possession of recently
stolen property, although the inference is not conclusive. See Hardesty v. State, 656
S.W.2d 73, 76–77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); see also Louis v. State, 159 S.W.3d 236,
248 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, pet. ref’d) (jury could infer that appellant was one
of gunmen who committed robbery when he was found a short time later with the
stolen items in close proximity after attempting to hide from police). In addition, the
–6– evidence showed that appellant drove a white Toyota Camry and was photographed
driving that vehicle near Walker’s residence shortly after the robbery. And on the
day of his arrest, appellant was trying to sell the bottles of liquor taken from Walker’s
home.
On this record, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that appellant committed aggravated robbery. See Harris v. State,
No. 05-18-01506-CR, 2020 WL 4218035, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 23, 2020,
pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Price v. State, 502
S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] no pet.). We therefore hold the
evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction, and overrule his sole issue.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 231103F.U05
–7– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
MATTHEW CORY TAYLOR, On Appeal from the 416th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-84887- No. 05-23-01103-CR V. 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Reichek and Goldstein participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 22, 2024
–8–