Mollie Williams Franklin v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00214-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00214-CR

MOLLIE WILLIAMS FRANKLIN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 47th District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 30458A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding

July 3, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Mollie Williams Franklin, appeals her conviction for the offense of

murder1 and sentence of sixty years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02. BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2019, police were dispatched to an apparently abandoned

vehicle at a local park. Upon investigating the vehicle, police found the body of Richard

Garza inside. Garza had been shot multiple times at close range. No weapon was found

in or near the vehicle, but multiple shell casings were recovered from inside the vehicle.

A gift bag was also recovered from the vehicle. Later, a broken acrylic fingernail was

discovered in the vehicle as well. Subsequent testing revealed Appellant’s DNA to be

present on the handle of the gift bag and the acrylic nail.

Appellant and Garza had dated for approximately seven years. After their breakup

in October of 2019, Appellant was upset that she had invested so much time into the

relationship. Appellant told her friend, Alexandria Herrera, that Garza “didn’t care about

her, he didn’t love her, and she just didn’t understand how someone could move on that

quick.”

Approximately four months into the investigation of Garza’s murder, a person

turned in a gun to the police. The person discovered the gun in Medi-Park Lake. The

gun, a Taurus 9mm, was traced to Appellant. Records reflect that she purchased the gun

from a Lubbock pawnshop on November 18, 2019. Upon testing, the gun matched the

shell casings recovered from Garza’s vehicle. While Appellant’s brother took the gun

from her at some point, he returned it to her on or about December 3, 2019.

Appellant was subsequently indicted for the murder of Garza. At trial, Appellant

testified that she met with Garza on the day of the shooting. During this meeting, Garza

turned violent and began attacking Appellant. Appellant claimed that her friend, Jesse

2 Cerda, came to her aid and shot Garza using Appellant’s Taurus 9mm. However, the

State presented evidence that Appellant’s testimony differed substantially from a pre-trial

interview she gave to police. At the close of trial, the jury rejected Appellant’s version of

events and found her guilty of murder. After hearing punishment evidence, the jury

returned a verdict recommending Appellant be incarcerated for a period of sixty years.

The trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury’s verdicts. From this judgment,

Appellant timely appeals.

Appellant appears to contend that the evidence is insufficient to support her

conviction because the State did not establish a discernable motive as to why Appellant

shot Garza. However, motive is not an element of the offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1) (“A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or

knowingly causes the death of an individual . . . .”). Liberally construing Appellant’s issue,

we will review whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that Appellant committed the

offense of murder.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard we apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support

a conviction is the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.

2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App.

2010). Under that standard, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to

the verdict and determine whether, based on the evidence and reasonable inferences

therefrom, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d

616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). Sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the 3 elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Thomas v.

State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). In our review, we must evaluate all the evidence in the record,

both direct and circumstantial, regardless of whether that evidence was properly or

improperly admitted. Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016);

Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We are also required to

defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge

of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. Winfrey v. State,

393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). When the record supports conflicting

inferences, we presume that the jury resolved any conflicts in favor of the verdict and will

defer to that determination. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525–26 (Tex. Crim. App.

2012).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We construe Appellant’s sole issue to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

support her conviction for the offense of murder. To establish the offense of murder as

alleged in the indictment, the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,

that Appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Garza. TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 19.02(b)(1).

In the present case, the evidence established that it was Appellant’s gun that was

used to kill Garza. Appellant’s brother testified that Appellant possessed the gun before

the time Garza was shot. The evidence also established that Appellant sat in the vehicle

Garza was driving at the time Garza was fatally shot. The pathologist opined that Garza

was shot at close range, consistent with the shots coming from the passenger’s seat of 4 the car. Additionally, Appellant’s friend, Herrera, testified that Appellant harbored anger

toward Garza.2 In fact, the only evidence that was exculpatory of Appellant was her own

testimony, in which she stated that Cerda shot Garza. However, by their verdict, the jury

chose not to believe Appellant’s testimony, which is their prerogative. See Winfrey, 393

S.W.3d at 768 (jury is sole judge of witnesses’ credibility and weight to be given their

testimony); Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525–26 (we defer to jury’s resolution of conflicting

inferences). We conclude that the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s alternative theory was

reasonable, especially considering the inconsistencies and outright lies presented by

Appellant throughout the investigation of Garza’s murder.3

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support

Appellant’s conviction for the offense of murder. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

2 Appellant’s issue focuses on the lack of proof of her motive to kill Garza. As previously noted, motive is not an element of the offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1) (“A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual . . . .”). However, even if it were, we believe, under the applicable standard of review, Herrera’s testimony is sufficient evidence of Appellant’s motive. 3 During the investigation, Appellant gave a statement to police in which she incorrectly identified

the location of Garza’s car, claimed that she and Garza had sex in her car before returning to his car, said she knew nothing about Garza being shot, and claimed that she gave Garza the Taurus 9mm in November and had not seen it since. Each of these statements was proven untrue at trial or was inconsistent with Appellant’s trial testimony.