In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________ NO. 09-24-00154-CR ________________
RONALD D. BABINO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCCR1062 ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Ronald D. Babino of murder and subsequently sentenced
him to twenty-two years of incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c) (classifying murder as a first-degree
The trial court’s judgment also lists Babino’s name as “RONALD 1
BABINO[,]” “RONALD DEMARD BABINO[,]” and “RONALD DEMARD BABINO JR[.]” 1 felony). In a single issue on appeal, Babino challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
Background
Indictment
At the time of trial, Babino’s indictment alleged the following:
[Ronald Babino] did then and there, as a party or a co-conspirator, intentionally or knowingly commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to wit: … aggravated robbery in which a firearm was introduced, displayed, discharged or used to shoot RICHARD SHILLOW, resulting in the death of RICHARD SHILLOW … and said death of RICHARD SHILLOW, was caused while the defendant was in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt of said felony[.]
Carolyn Lewis
Carloyn Lewis works as a 911 dispatcher and shift supervisor for the City of
Beaumont 911 Center. In the late-night hours of March 27, 2022, and the early
morning hours of March 28, 2022, the dispatch center received two separate calls
regarding a homicide and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Copies of the 911
calls were admitted as evidence.
Officer Michael Ballard
Officer Michael Ballard works as a patrol officer for the Beaumont Police
Department. He described his educational and professional background and stated
that he has worked for the Beaumont Police Department for five years. Ballard was
working the night of March 27, 2022, when he received a call from dispatch 2 regarding a shooting at an apartment complex. When Ballard arrived, there were
several other officers on the scene, and he observed a red Cadillac parked against a
fence, and a black male was lying on the ground beside the vehicle’s driver side
door. The victim had “a couple of gunshot wounds” and was “barely breathing[.]”
Emergency personnel arrived and began to render aid to the victim. Ballard’s body
camera footage from that night was admitted at trial. After EMS arrived, Ballard
worked as “scene security[,] keeping anyone out of the scene.”
Several surveillance video excerpts were admitted into evidence. According
to Ballard, the video evidence shows two black males with hoods over their heads
walking across the courtyard area of the Virginia Estate Manor apartment complex.
This was remarkable to Ballard because “[g]enerally in this part of the day when the
sun’s out and someone’s wearing a hoodie or their hood over their head, they’re
doing it to conceal their identity.” Ballard testified the video shows a “subject
peeking around the corner[,]” and then “running away back the direction he came.”
In another portion of the same video exhibit, Ballard testified that it shows a red
Cadillac come into the frame, and that vehicle then backs into a parking spot.
According to Ballard, “The two previous black males are walking to the complex,
now approaching the vehicle.” Someone exits the driver’s side of the red Cadillac
and speaks to the other two males, and the red Cadillac drives away. Later the two
black males appear on the video to be “standing and waiting[,]” until the red Cadillac
3 returns. The two men then approach the Cadillac, going to the “[p]assenger side and
opening up the door to speak with [the driver].” The same two men appear to then
be running away, and the driver of the red Cadillac collapses on the ground. Ballard
and emergency responders then arrive on the scene.
Describing another video, taken from a different angle, Ballard testified that
a silver Infinity appears on the video and enters through the main entrance and backs
into a parking space before two suspects exit the vehicle. The two men then walk an
indirect route in the direction of the red Cadillac. According to Ballard, another
person appears on the video and appears to be standing outside the silver Infinity.
Later, the video shows the silver Infinity “tak[ing] off[,]” the two subjects who had
approached the red Cadillac appear in frame, and the silver Infinity “stop[s], open[s]
the door,” and the two men get inside.
Michelle Ceja
Michelle Ceja is employed as a crime scene technician for the Beaumont
Police Department. Ceja stated that she has been employed as a crime scene
technician for six years and described her job duties, including documenting
evidence by taking photos, making videos, and gathering and taking swabs of
biological material. She was called to the scene on March 27, 2022, and observed a
red Cadillac in the parking lot of the apartment complex. The victim had already
been transported to the hospital, and she observed bullet casings and a white rag with
4 blood on the ground by the driver’s side of the red Cadillac. Ceja’s photographs of
the crime scene were admitted into evidence at trial. In the early morning hours of
the following day, Ceja left the scene and went to process a “silver [Infinity] vehicle
[that] was located at another apartment complex.” Photographs of the silver Infinity
were also admitted into evidence. Ceja also photographed a GMC truck found at
another location, and she noted that two guns were found inside the GMC truck.
Alize Ballard
Alize Ballard testified that she was the girlfriend of the victim, Richard
Shillow. She confirmed that on March 27, 2022, Shillow drove a red Cadillac, and
around 7:30 pm she was on the phone talking to him. During the conversation, she
heard his car make a sound indicating that he was backing up, and then Shillow
screamed out that he had been shot. She did not know if Shillow used or sold
marijuana.
Dr. Tommy Brown
Doctor Tommy Brown is a retired forensic pathologist. Brown described his
educational and professional background and estimated that he had performed over
15,000 autopsies. Brown reviewed the autopsy performed on Shillow on March 30,
2022, and stated that Shillow had two gunshot wounds, and the manner of his death
was homicide.
5 Officer Adam Little
Officer Adam Little is an officer who has worked with the Beaumont Police
Department since 2010. Little testified that he typically works the “[m]idnight” shift.
He described his professional background and noted that he is the K9 handler for the
department. In the early morning hours of March 28, 2022, Little was working with
his K9 partner when he received notification that a vehicle had been stolen but “a
subject…was able to track the location of [the] stolen vehicle.” When he reached the
area of the stolen vehicle, another officer observed a vehicle matching the stolen
vehicle’s description and was in pursuit. According to Little, this was a high-speed
chase, and the occupants of the vehicle were “attempting to evade police and not be
caught.” The high-speed chase ended in an apartment complex parking lot, and all
the vehicle’s occupants exited the car and fled on foot. Little testified he “[e]xit[ed]
out of the [police] vehicle, t[old] them to stop and brought my K9 partner with me
and then pursued them on foot until I was unable to pursue them anymore.” He
described the driver of the vehicle as having a “[b]right white shirt and red pants.”
Eventually, all the stolen vehicle’s occupants, except the driver, were apprehended.
Later, the police also located and arrested the driver. Little’s patrol car camera and
body camera footage from the chase were admitted at trial.
Surveillance footage from a gas station was also admitted into evidence.
According to Little, the video from the gas station shows a “silver [sedan] with a
6 mismatched bumper” pulling into the gas station, but no one exits the vehicle or goes
to pump gas. A black GMC pickup truck then enters the convenience store parking
lot, and the driver exits the vehicle and enters the convenience store. The GMC
pickup truck’s headlights remain on, which indicates to Little the truck is still
running. Little testified that this GMC pickup truck appears to match the vehicle
involved in the high-speed chase of the stolen vehicle. Next, according to Little, the
video shows a sedan pull up next to the GMC pickup truck. The driver of the sedan
then exits the vehicle and walks toward the front of the convenience store. Little
identified the driver of the sedan as having the same white shirt and red pants as the
individual from the high-speed chase. Little testified that the driver of the sedan
“continually looks into the driver area of the black GMC[,]” then a person in the
passenger side of the sedan “gets out and then quickly enters the driver seat of the
GMC and drives away.” Little concluded that the sedan’s occupants “watched this
vehicle pull in and watched the gentleman leave it running and then they jumped in
and stole it.” He believed the driver of the sedan “was looking to make sure there
was nobody else inside the vehicle.” Based on the surveillance footage, Little
identified Babino as the person wearing the white shirt and red pants and driving the
silver sedan that night.
7 Officer Alejandro Guadian
Officer Alejandro Guadian has worked as an officer with the Beaumont Police
Department for five years. He detailed his educational and professional background
and stated he responded to a shooting on March 27, 2022, around 7:30 pm at the
Virginia Manor Estates Apartments. He was also on patrol in the early morning
hours of March 28, 2022, and assisted the officers in pursuit of the stolen GMC
pickup truck, and “after lengthy pursuit[,]” Guadian apprehended a person whom he
identified in court as Babino. When he searched Babino, he found multiple “clear
baggies containing a green, leafy substance, which [he] suspected to be marijuana
[based on his] police training and experience[.]” During a second search, he also
found a lighter and a key to an Infinity. Guadian then transported Babino to the
Beaumont Police Station to speak to detectives and later to the Jefferson County
Correctional Facility. Footage from Guadian’s body camera was admitted at trial.
Detective Tomora Hamilton
Detective Tomora Hamilton is a detective with the Beaumont Police
Department and currently works as an investigator in the Administration
Department. Hamilton testified regarding her professional and educational
background and stated that on March 27, 2022, she was called around 7:00 pm about
a shooting at an apartment complex. When she arrived, she observed a red Cadillac
8 and the victim had already been transported to the hospital. She described what she
did that night as follows.
Speaking to officers, reviewing videos, talking to the witnesses. At one point once the video -- once I saw the video, I was able to take screenshots of two subjects that was shown in the video walking towards the car. I was able to get that to PCR asking for community assistance in identifying the suspects.
She identified the two suspects who approached the red Cadillac as Kaylon
Johnson and Joseph Freeman. Hamilton later learned the Infinity was driven by
Babino, and another passenger was identified as Charles Verdine. Hamilton stated
that Freeman was shot after he approached the red Cadillac, and Babino transported
him to Verdine’s girlfriend’s house.
Hamilton interviewed Babino after his arrest for driving the stolen black GMC
pickup truck. A copy of her interview of Babino was played for the jury. In the
interview, Babino told Hamilton he does not drive any other vehicles, but Hamilton
determined he was lying. Hamilton testified that Babino lied several times during
his interview. Babino told investigators that he was looking to “make some money[]”
that day, and that someone came up with “[a] lick” which Hamilton said is an illegal
way to make money, or “rob somebody.” Babino told Hamilton that the plan was to
give Johnson and Freeman a ride and “[g]et a lick[.]” Hamilton testified that Babino
told her that Johnson and Freeman walked up to Shillow, and Freeman was shot
during the interaction. Hamilton believed that Babino assisted Verdine in the taking
9 of the black GMC hours after dropping off Freeman and Johnson following
Shillow’s shooting. According to Hamilton, Verdine was one of the coconspirators
from the Virginia Manor Estates Apartment complex shooting. Hamilton testified
that based on her investigation, training and experience, Babino’s and Verdine’s
participation in the unauthorized use of the vehicle indicated Babino was also a
coconspirator in the shooting.
Additional surveillance video footage was admitted at trial. According to
Hamilton, the video shows a gray Infinity pulling into the parking lot of the Virgina
Manor Estates Apartment complex and initially parking closer to where it entered
the parking lot, but ultimately parking further away from the entrance. Hamilton
surmised that if the Infinity had parked closer to the red Cadillac, the driver “would
have been able to see it.” The video showed the driver of the gray Infinity wearing
a “[w]hite top, reddish pants.” Johnson and Freeman can be observed on the video
when they are exiting the Infinity, and they are wearing hoodies with the hoods
pulled over their heads. Hamilton explained this indicated Johnson and Freeman
wanted to conceal their identity, because the video showed other people wearing
shorts and t-shirts. The video shows Shillow driving into the parking lot in a red
Cadillac and going to the back of the apartment complex. Hamilton testified
that Johnson and Freeman open the passenger side door of the red
Cadillac and “[s]econds” later are observed “running away from the red Cadillac.”
10 As Johnson and Freeman start running away from the red Cadillac, the Infinity “pulls
out of the parking spot and waits.” In her opinion, although the driver of the Infinity
could not see the red Cadillac, “[h]earing the shots being fired[]” prompted the driver
to pull out of the parking spot. Hamilton testified that the video then shows the door
of the Infinity open, which aids Johnson and Freeman getting into the Infinity. The
Infinity then leaves the parking lot. Hamilton testified that the bullet casings found
in the red Cadillac match the caliber of one of the guns the police later found in the
stolen GMC pickup truck.
During cross-examination, Hamilton testified she knew that Shillow and the
Infinity’s occupants already met earlier, before the shooting, and she believed they
were setting up a drug deal. She believed that the Infinity parked where the driver of
the red Cadillac could not see the car to “give Mr. Shillow a sense of confidence that
he won’t be robbed.” She testified that she did not search Babino’s phone and that
another cell phone extraction from that night did not reveal any evidence showing
Babino’s involvement.
Jury Charge and Verdict
The jury charge instructed the jury that to find Babino guilty, the jury must
agree on the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
11 LAW SPECIFIC TO THE CASE
The defendant, Ronald D[.] Babino, stands charged by indictment with the offense of Murder. Specifically, the accusation is that the defendant is guilty of Murder under two alternative theories.
Party Liability
First, the state contends that Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman committed Murder and the defendant is criminally responsible for this offense as a party because the defendant solicited, encouraged, directed, aided or attempted to aid Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman in committing it.
Co-conspirator Liability
Second, the state contends that Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman committed Murder and the defendant is criminally responsible for this offense as a co-conspirator.
[…]
A person commits the offense of Murder if the person commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
A person commits the offense of Aggravated Robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, the person intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon.
A member of a conspiracy to commit one felony offense is guilty of another felony offense committed by one of his co-conspirators when that other felony offense was committed in furtherance of the original 12 unlawful conspiracy and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the unlawful conspiracy. Under those circumstances, all co- conspirators are guilty of the felony offense actually committed by one member of the conspiracy, though the rest of them had no intent to commit it.
A defendant conspires with others to commit a felony offense if—
1. the defendant intends that a felony offense be committed;
2. the defendant agrees with one or more persons that one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the felony offense; and
3. one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
Murder and Aggravated Robbery are felony offenses.
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of Murder, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element l or 2 listed above, meaning you do not find that the parties and/or co-conspirators acted in self-defense, you must find the defendant “guilty.”
The jury found Babino guilty of murder, and on appeal, Babino asserts the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
Analysis
The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the evidence and the weight
to be given to that evidence. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App.
2020). As such, the jury is responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony, is
free to believe some, all, or none of a witness’s testimony, and may assign as much
or as little weight to a witness’s testimony as it sees fit. Id. Jurors may also draw 13 reasonable inferences from the evidence. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007). “[A]n inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts
and deducing a logical consequence from them.” Id. at 16.
When examining whether a criminal conviction is supported by legally
sufficient evidence, we compare the evidence to the elements of the offense as
defined by a hypothetically correct charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We consider all the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict, along with the inferences that could reasonably be drawn
from the evidence. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. We do not assess the credibility of
the evidence, reweigh the evidence, nor substitute our judgment for that of the jury.
See Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction if any rational trier
of fact could have found each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979). “Each fact
need not point directly and independently to a defendant’s guilt, as long as the
cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the
conviction.” Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(citation omitted); see also Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 761–62 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2023) (citation omitted) (“A proper review of evidentiary sufficiency considers
the cumulative force of the evidence.”).
14 A person commits murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death
of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1). “Murder is a ‘result of
conduct’ offense, which means that the culpable mental state relates to the result of
the conduct, i.e., the causing of the death.” Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398, 400
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citation omitted). A person acts intentionally with respect
to a result of his conduct “when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in
the conduct or cause the result.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(a). A person acts
knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct “when he is aware that his conduct
is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(b).
Under the law of parties, “[a] person is criminally responsible as a party to an
offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another
for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.” Id. § 7.01(a); Adames v. State,
353 S.W.3d 854, 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A person is criminally responsible for
an offense committed by the conduct of another if “acting with the intent to promote
or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or
attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense[.]” See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 7.02(a)(2); Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 862.“‘Evidence is sufficient to convict under
the law of parties where the defendant is physically present at the commission of the
offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement.’” Salinas v.
State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Ransom v. State, 920
15 S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). Party participation may be shown by
events occurring before, during, and after the commission of the offense, and may
be demonstrated by actions showing an understanding and common design to do the
prohibited act. Id. at 739–40.
A criminal conspiracy arises when multiple people agree to commit an offense
and “one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.” Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 15.02(a)(2). The Texas Penal Code also provides that
If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the offense actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
Id. § 7.02(b). For a defendant to be found guilty as a party to the secondary offense
(here, murder), the jury must determine that the secondary offense was committed
in furtherance of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy (here, aggravated robbery)
and was one that the co-conspirators should have anticipated as a potential result of
carrying out that conspiracy. Anderson v. State, 416 S.W.3d 884, 889 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013) (concluding that the question before an appellate court is whether it was
rational for the jury to infer that the accused should have anticipated that the
secondary offense would occur as a result of the primary offense). The State is not
required to prove that the defendant actually anticipated the commission of the
16 secondary offense, “only that the crime is one that should have been anticipated.”
Id.
On this record, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Babino, Freeman
and Johnson lured Shillow to the apartment complex so they could commit an
aggravated robbery of Shillow. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury heard testimony
that Babino was looking to make money that day or “[g]et a lick[,]” which Hamilton
stated could be interpreted as a robbery. The jury also heard testimony that Babino
was the driver of the gray Infinity that day and that the car was positioned in a way
to hide from Shillow’s view when he entered the apartment complex. The same car
then picked up Freeman and Johnson after Shillow was shot and left the apartment
complex. Hamilton testified that Freeman and Johnson returned from their meeting
with Shillow with a gun. Later, the jury heard testimony that Babino worked as a
lookout to steal a GMC truck and that a gun matching the gun used to kill Shillow
was found in the stolen truck. The jury could have reasonably inferred from the
evidence that Babino, Freeman, and Johnson were armed and planned to rob
Shillow.
By his own admission to Hamilton, Babino wanted to get “a lick” or commit
a robbery that night. Babino aided or attempted to aide Freeman and Johnson in the
commission of the offense of aggravated robbery, and he is also criminally
responsible as a party to the offense of murder because his co-conspirators, Johnson
17 or Freeman, intentionally or knowingly caused Shillow’s death in furtherance of the
aggravated robbery, and the murder was a result that Babino should have anticipated
as a consequence of carrying out the conspiracy to commit the offense of aggravated
robbery. Ervin v. State, 333 S.W.3d 187, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston 2010, pet. ref’d)
(explaining a jury could find appellant committed murder “in an attempt to carry out
a conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and, though
appellant had no intent to commit the murder, it was committed in furtherance of the
unlawful purpose and should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of
the conspiracy”); Yancy v. State, No. 03-23-00251-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS
6222, at *17 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 15, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (same); Dale v. State, No. 05-24-00742-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS
4011, at *8 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 11, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (“Under the law of parties, by initiating the conspiracy that resulted
in [the victim’s] death, appellant can be found guilty of murder even if appellant did
not actually kill [the victim] himself.”). Even if Babino did not intend for Johnson
or Freeman to shoot Shillow during the robbery, a reasonable jury could have
concluded that Babino should have anticipated that a murder was possible. See
Anderson, 416 S.W.3d at 889, Ervin, 333 S.W.3d at 201. Based on the evidence, the
jury could have reasonably concluded that Babino anticipated, or should have
anticipated, the possibility that Johnson or Freeman may shoot Shillow during the
18 course of the robbery. Anderson, 416 S.W.3d at 889; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 7.02(b).
After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we
conclude a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. The State offered evidence
from which a rational trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Babino acted “with intent to promote or assist” in committing Shillow’s murder and
aided others in committing the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.01(a) (parties
to offenses); 7.02(a)(2) (criminal responsibility for conduct of another); 19.02(b)(1)
(murder). Accordingly, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict.
We overrule Babino’s issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
AFFIRMED.
KENT CHAMBERS Justice
Submitted on August 22, 2025 Opinion Delivered February 4, 2026 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.