Cesar Perez v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7131
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Perez was convicted of aggregated theft of property ($1,500–$20,000) by a public servant under one scheme or continuing course of conduct.
- Zamarripa and Martinez pled no contest to charges and testified at Perez's trial in exchange for deferred adjudication.
- The JP court collected traffic-violation payments; handwritten receipts were used alongside Pro-Com system entries.
- Non-accomplice witnesses, such as Rodriguez, Pereda, Montemayor, and Garcia, testified to payments and missing funds.
- Accomplice witnesses Martinez and Zamarripa testified about appellant's involvement in dismissing citations and taking money; handwriting on receipts and Pro-Com records were introduced.
- The State argued a total amount unaccounted for exceeded $1,500, supporting the aggregate offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration of accomplice testimony | Perez lacks corroboration beyond accomplice testimony. | State presented additional non-accomplice evidence linking Perez. | Sufficient corroboration exists; conviction affirmed. |
| Legal sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove aggregated theft beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence, including non-accomplice and accomplice testimony, supports guilt. | Evidence legally sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. State, 873 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (accomplice corroboration standard)
- Castillo v. State, 221 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (non-accomplice evidence must connect defendant to offense)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (non-accomplice evidence may be indirect linking defendant)
- Cantelon v. State, 85 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (tends-to-connect standard)
- De La Fuente v. State, 264 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (aggregation of offenses under one scheme; proof of individual theft not required)
- Lehman v. State, 792 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (aggregation principles for offenses under one scheme)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (due process standard for factual sufficiency review)