Donald D. Beckett v. State
01-16-00505-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- On March 3, 2015, a shooting at the Chop Shop barbershop left Isaac Tandoh dead; two others (including barber Shannon Miller) were wounded.
- Miller, a member of the Black Disciples gang, initially denied knowing the shooter but later identified appellant Donald Beckett (known to Miller as “Hitman”) from a photograph and a line-up.
- A red Suburban belonging to Beckett’s wife matched a vehicle seen at the scene; Miller testified Beckett was known to drive a red Suburban.
- Cell‑tower records for the phone Beckett used that night placed that phone in the area of the barbershop, not at the sister’s apartment Beckett claimed as an alibi; calls linked Beckett to gang member Hasan Matthews before and after the shooting.
- Jailhouse phone recordings included statements suggesting someone called “Hitman” to the scene; Beckett made recorded apologies to a barber while jailed.
- A jury convicted Beckett of murder and sentenced him to 50 years’ confinement; Beckett appealed raising sufficiency and factual‑sufficiency arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Beckett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of identity evidence | Miller’s eyewitness ID plus circumstantial evidence (red Suburban, cell records, calls) prove Beckett was shooter | Evidence at best minimal; identification and circumstantial proof insufficient | Court upheld conviction — evidence legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Right to factual‑sufficiency review under Texas Constitution | State: Jackson standard governs appellate sufficiency review; factual sufficiency review is not required | Beckett: Texas Constitution and due process entitle him to a neutral, factual‑sufficiency weighing by court of appeals | Court rejected Beckett’s claim, followed precedent declining separate factual‑sufficiency review (Brooks and subsequent cases) |
| Applicability of Brooks and state precedent | State: Brooks and Court of Criminal Appeals control standard of review | Beckett: Brooks wrongly decided; article V, §6(a) makes appellate fact determinations conclusive and permits factual review | Court applied Brooks/Kiffe/Martinez and declined to reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal‑sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (adopted Jackson standard for all sufficiency claims; discontinued separate factual‑sufficiency review)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidence measured by hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Crim. App.) (one eyewitness sufficient to support conviction)
- Kiffe v. State, 361 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (applied Court of Criminal Appeals precedent; declined independent factual‑sufficiency review)