Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas

DecidedOctober 17, 2001

Docket10-01-00029-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas (Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-029-CR

RAMON EUGENE GIBBS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 846,215

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Ramon Eugene Gibbs of aggravated robbery. The trial court found the single enhancement allegation of a prior felony true. The court assessed his punishment at thirty years’ imprisonment. Gibbs claims in two points that: (1) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the conviction; and (2) the thirty-year sentence imposed by the trial court is cruel and unusual punishment.

Legal and Factual Insufficiency

In Gibbs’s first point he argues the legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Gibbs urges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for instructed verdict.

A challenge to the trial court's ruling on a motion for an instructed verdict is in actuality a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Godsey v. State, 989 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref’d). In reviewing a claim of legal insufficiency, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. See Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). We resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict. Id.

In the present case, the store owner testified that on the evening of May 31, 2000, Gibbs and two other men entered his store. Gibbs placed a bag of chips on the counter and demanded money. He pointed a gun at a store employee and at the store owner himself. The store owner testified that he fired a gun at Gibbs in self-defense before Gibbs fled the store. The store owner and employee both identified Gibbs at trial as one of the armed men in the store. A wrecker driver passing the store at the time of the robbery testified that he saw three men leaving the store simultaneously. The wrecker driver also identified Gibbs at trial as one of the men leaving the store carrying a pistol. The driver stated that Gibbs ran across the parking lot to a ditch, where he disposed of the pistol, and left the scene in the same car as the other two men.

The State presented eyewitness testimony identifying Gibbs as one of the men involved in the robbery. Viewing these eyewitness accounts in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery.

When presented with a factual insufficiency claim, we discard the prism of the light most favorable to the verdict. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We “set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7 (quoting Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 129). This occurs when “the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury’s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof.” Id. at 11.

We consider all the evidence in the record related to the contested issue, “not just the evidence which supports the verdict.” Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. We review the evidence tending to prove the issue, “and compare it to the evidence which tends to disprove that [issue].” Id.; accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We give appropriate deference to the jury's decision and do not substitute our judgment for theirs. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We do not set aside the “verdict merely because [we] feel that a different result is more reasonable.” Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 135 (quoting Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Tex. 1986)); accord Cain, 958 S.W.2d at 407.

The record shows that the store owner and store employee both identified Gibbs at trial as the armed man who entered the store. The owner stated that Gibbs approached the store counter with a gun and demanded money. The owner then shot Gibbs before he fled the store. The State’s evidence shows that Gibbs refused to explain his gunshot injury to police or hospital personnel during his treatment on the night of the robbery. The store owner also identified Gibbs at the hospital as one of the robbers. At trial, the investigating officer testified that he interviewed Gibbs the day after the robbery. After Gibbs was admonished of his legal rights, he admitted his involvement in the robbery to the officer, including possessing a gun. Also at trial, the wrecker driver testified that he saw Gibbs fleeing the store with two other men. He saw Gibbs dispose of a pistol before driving away with the two other men.

Gibbs testified on his own behalf at trial. His version of the events differed from the State’s evidence. He testified that he stopped at the store alone to buy a snack. He stated that while in a store aisle he heard gunshots and turned around toward the counter to see the owner holding a gun. Gibbs contends he was unarmed at all times. He testified that the store owner shot him, and he then fled the store alone, driving himself to the hospital.

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

Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-029-CR

RAMON EUGENE GIBBS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 846,215

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Ramon Eugene Gibbs of aggravated robbery. The trial court found the single enhancement allegation of a prior felony true. The court assessed his punishment at thirty years’ imprisonment. Gibbs claims in two points that: (1) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the conviction; and (2) the thirty-year sentence imposed by the trial court is cruel and unusual punishment.

Legal and Factual Insufficiency

In Gibbs’s first point he argues the legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Gibbs urges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for instructed verdict.

A challenge to the trial court's ruling on a motion for an instructed verdict is in actuality a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Godsey v. State, 989 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref’d). In reviewing a claim of legal insufficiency, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. See Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). We resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict. Id.

In the present case, the store owner testified that on the evening of May 31, 2000, Gibbs and two other men entered his store. Gibbs placed a bag of chips on the counter and demanded money. He pointed a gun at a store employee and at the store owner himself. The store owner testified that he fired a gun at Gibbs in self-defense before Gibbs fled the store. The store owner and employee both identified Gibbs at trial as one of the armed men in the store. A wrecker driver passing the store at the time of the robbery testified that he saw three men leaving the store simultaneously. The wrecker driver also identified Gibbs at trial as one of the men leaving the store carrying a pistol. The driver stated that Gibbs ran across the parking lot to a ditch, where he disposed of the pistol, and left the scene in the same car as the other two men.

The State presented eyewitness testimony identifying Gibbs as one of the men involved in the robbery. Viewing these eyewitness accounts in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery.

When presented with a factual insufficiency claim, we discard the prism of the light most favorable to the verdict. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We “set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7 (quoting Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 129). This occurs when “the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury’s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof.” Id. at 11.

We consider all the evidence in the record related to the contested issue, “not just the evidence which supports the verdict.” Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. We review the evidence tending to prove the issue, “and compare it to the evidence which tends to disprove that [issue].” Id.; accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We give appropriate deference to the jury's decision and do not substitute our judgment for theirs. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); accord Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We do not set aside the “verdict merely because [we] feel that a different result is more reasonable.” Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 135 (quoting Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Tex. 1986)); accord Cain, 958 S.W.2d at 407.

The record shows that the store owner and store employee both identified Gibbs at trial as the armed man who entered the store. The owner stated that Gibbs approached the store counter with a gun and demanded money. The owner then shot Gibbs before he fled the store. The State’s evidence shows that Gibbs refused to explain his gunshot injury to police or hospital personnel during his treatment on the night of the robbery. The store owner also identified Gibbs at the hospital as one of the robbers. At trial, the investigating officer testified that he interviewed Gibbs the day after the robbery. After Gibbs was admonished of his legal rights, he admitted his involvement in the robbery to the officer, including possessing a gun. Also at trial, the wrecker driver testified that he saw Gibbs fleeing the store with two other men. He saw Gibbs dispose of a pistol before driving away with the two other men.

Gibbs testified on his own behalf at trial. His version of the events differed from the State’s evidence. He testified that he stopped at the store alone to buy a snack. He stated that while in a store aisle he heard gunshots and turned around toward the counter to see the owner holding a gun. Gibbs contends he was unarmed at all times. He testified that the store owner shot him, and he then fled the store alone, driving himself to the hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital he was in shock, and did not understand hospital staff or police questioning. Further, he stated that he does not know why the police officers, store owner, and wrecker driver would “lie” about the events of the robbery.

The jury chose to believe the testimony and credibility of the state’s witnesses over that of Gibbs himself. Considering all the evidence in the record, the jury finding of guilt is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the verdict. We overrule Gibbs’ first point of error.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In Gibbs’s second point, he argues that a thirty-year prison sentence for aggravated robbery imposes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13, of the Texas Constitution.

Gibbs did not preserve the alleged error for review. In order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present a timely complaint to the trial court, state the specific grounds for the desired ruling (if not otherwise apparent), and obtain a ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Most constitutional errors may be waived or forfeited by the failure to make a timely assertion of that right. See Hawkins v. State, 964 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, pet. ref’d). The courts have held that any error in regard to a cruel and unusual punishment claim under the Eighth Amendment or the Texas Constitution is waived without a timely objection to the sentence imposed. See Rhoades at 934 S.W.2d 120; Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d); Keith v. State, 975 S.W.2d 433, 33-34 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet).

In this case, Gibbs raised no objection to the imposition of sentence at trial, nor did he raise a claim of cruel and unusual punishment in a motion for new trial. Under these circumstances, we hold that error was not preserved. We overrule Gibbs’s second point of error.

We affirm the judgment.

REX D. DAVIS

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2001

Do not publish

[CRPM]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramon Eugene Gibbs v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramon-eugene-gibbs-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack