Damion Gentry v. State, 01-14-00336-CR

Background

Appellant Damion Gentry (14 years, 10 months at the time) was implicated in two aggravated robberies and related shootings on January 19, 2012; he was later certified to adult court, tried, and convicted by jury on two counts of aggravated robbery (50 years + $10,000 each).
Police stopped a gray F‑150 after gunfire was heard at a shopping center; Appellant was identified in the vehicle, detained, transported for magistrate warnings, and gave a written statement admitting presence and participation in the incidents.
Victim Nelson Escobar (parking‑lot janitor) testified Appellant exited the truck, pointed a gun, demanded money, struck him with the gun, chased him and fired multiple shots; surveillance and shell‑case toolmark evidence linked casings from the parking lot, the truck, and a separate roadway shooting.
Victim Masario Garza (68, driving to work) testified a young male stepped from a truck with a gun, Garza fled and was shot at; vehicle glass and a recovered projectile corroborated the shooting.
Juvenile‑court certification hearing included forensic psychiatric/psychological evaluations (Drs. Axelrad, Pollock, Gollaher), probation officer testimony showing extensive prior juvenile referrals and services exhausted, and magistrate Judge Ward’s testimony about statutory warnings and the written statement process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gentry)	Held
1. Factual sufficiency of juvenile‑court certification under Tex. Fam. Code §54.02(f)	Certification supported: offenses against persons, sophistication/maturity, prior record/referrals, exhausted juvenile resources; findings not against great weight of evidence	Juvenile court’s reasons insufficient; factors do not support waiver	Certification affirmed — juvenile court’s specific factual findings supported and ultimate waiver not an abuse of discretion (Moon framework applied)
2. Admission of written statement after suppression of audio under Tex. Fam. Code §51.095	Written statement complied with §51.095 (magistrate warnings given, child waived rights, statement signed in magistrate’s presence); admissible despite suppression of audio/oral testimony	Written statement was fruit of tainted oral/confidential recording; suppression of audio mandates exclusion of derivative written statement	Admission affirmed — trial court found written statement complied with statutory requirements and was voluntary; audio suppressed for recording defect only
3. Legal sufficiency of evidence to convict for aggravated robbery of Garza	Cumulative evidence (Garza’s fear, seeing gun, shots fired into car, similar conduct in Escobar robbery shortly after) supports intent to commit theft and ‘‘in the course of committing theft’’ element	Insufficient: no dialogue with Garza; Garza’s belief was speculative — no proof of intent to steal	Conviction affirmed — any rational juror could infer intent from conduct and supporting circumstances; cumulative circumstantial evidence sufficient

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for legal sufficiency review) (review of whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (circumstantial‑evidence conviction may be sustained by cumulative force of incriminating evidence)
Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard for appellate review of juvenile‑court waiver: sufficiency of findings then abuse‑of‑discretion for ultimate waiver decision)
Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Jackson sufficiency standard discussion)
Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standards for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (consideration of all evidence when assessing legal sufficiency)
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (cumulative evidence in circumstantial‑evidence cases)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standards of appellate review for mixed fact‑law questions)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion and de novo standards in suppression review)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (if ruling correct under any legal theory, it will be sustained)