Edwin Riascos Romero v. State
05-16-01105-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Appellant Edwin Riascos Romero was tried with four co-defendants on five indictments consolidated for trial; he was convicted of one count of burglary of a habitation and one count of aggravated robbery and acquitted on the remaining counts; sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Crimes occurred during a two-week period in spring 2015: multiple burglaries/robberies of homes, victims were Asian, perpetrator entered through rear, searched master bedrooms, took jewelry and cash.
- Surveillance video showed a vehicle registered to appellant’s roommate, Pier Pelaez, near a crime scene; police later stopped a van registered to Pelaez with Romero as a passenger; Romero fled the stop.
- Police searched the shared home and found items and tools (including a window punch) similar to those used/taken in the burglaries; a shoe in Romero’s possession matched a tread impression from a damaged window screen at one scene; cellphone records placed Romero near one robbery.
- No witness identified Romero at the scenes; there was no DNA or fingerprints tying Romero to scenes; Romero argued mistaken identity and blamed Pelaez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary conviction | State: circumstantial evidence (cell records, shoe tread, stolen items, tool, presence in stopped van) supports conviction | Romero: no ID, no DNA/fingerprints, video only shows roommate’s vehicle, stolen items not all in his room | Conviction upheld; viewed in light most favorable to verdict, evidence sufficient for burglary |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery conviction | State: victim testimony, cellphone records placing Romero nearby, robbery pattern | Romero: someone else committed it; no direct ID | Conviction upheld; rational trier could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admission of extraneous-offense testimony | State: extraneous offense (nearby, same period, similar methods and demand for "gold," victim Asian, entry through back, deadly weapon) relevant to identity/modus operandi | Romero: prejudicial; similarities are generic robberies, should be excluded under Rule 403 | Admission upheld; trial court within reasonable zone—extraneous act probative on identity and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Whether trial court considered full range of punishment | State: N/A (sentence within statutory range) | Romero: trial court dismissed sentencing arguments and imposed harsher-than-requested sentence without adequate consideration | Rejected; no clear showing of bias or abuse of discretion, sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (courts do not reweigh evidence when reviewing legal sufficiency)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible for identity via modus operandi if probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice)
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court’s admission of extraneous-offense evidence is reviewed for zone-of-reasonable-disagreement)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (presumption that sentencing court considered full range of punishment absent clear showing of bias)
- Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentencing decisions)