Brandon Jeremy Reed v. State
01-16-00055-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Reed and two accomplices entered a T‑Mobile store; one accomplice displayed a revolver and another (the driver) had entered seconds earlier and later drove them away.
- Reed (unarmed) ordered the clerk to kneel, took about $900 from the register and a phone; the gunman forced Guerrero to the floor, grabbed Guerrero’s wallet, and pointed a gun at victims.
- Guerrero pursued the suspects, notified police, and identified the BMW and occupants; deputies arrested Reed, the gunman, and the driver nearby.
- Officers recovered a loaded revolver, bandana, shirts, phones, and roughly the amount of cash taken, divided among the three men; Reed had $1,081 on him.
- Reed was charged with aggravated robbery (robbery committed with a deadly weapon). The jury was instructed on the law of parties and convicted Reed; he appealed arguing evidentiary insufficiency because the jury charge allegedly allowed conviction only if he personally committed all elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficiency of the evidence must be measured by the jury charge actually given or by a hypothetically correct charge, and whether evidence supports aggravated‑robbery conviction under that standard | Reed: sufficiency should be measured by the actual jury charge (Benson); conviction invalid if charge allowed conviction without proving Reed personally committed every element | State: Malik governs — use a hypothetically correct charge; evidence shows Reed was a party to robbery with a deadly weapon, so sufficient | Court: Malik controls; evidence sufficient under a hypothetically correct charge to sustain aggravated‑robbery conviction; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Benson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (older standard measuring sufficiency by the jury charge actually given)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (adopting the hypothetically correct jury charge standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for appellate sufficiency review—evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Texas criminal sufficiency review principles; appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
- Hoang v. State, 263 S.W.3d 18 (sufficiency to convict under the law of parties requires presence plus encouragement or agreement)