Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49

Appellant Kenneth Shaye Ervin was convicted of murder for shooting Quincy Sheppard, resulting in a life sentence.
The shootings occurred over a period of roughly one week, with Ervin allegedly firing at the Sheppard brothers on two occasions prior to Quincy’s death.
Ronald Sheppard identified Ervin as the shooter; Dixon observed Ervin leaving the crime scene and attempting to conceal something he believed to be a gun.
Two .40 caliber cartridge casings were found at the scene; two .40 caliber bullets were recovered from Ervin's girlfriend's apartment, consistent with the weapon and ammunition used.
A motive was inferred from Ervin’s prior gunfire at the Sheppards and dispute over money and marijuana during the prior incidents.
Dixon’s testimony about a post-incident conversation and the lack of contemporaneous eyewitness testimony were highlighted in the sufficiency challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of the evidence	Ervin argues no direct evidence of his shooting Quincy.	State contends circumstantial evidence and motive prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.	The evidence is legally sufficient.
Factual sufficiency of the evidence	Ervin claims the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust given weak corroboration.	State contends the total circumstantial evidence supports guilt when viewed as a whole.	The evidence is factually sufficient; verdict not clearly wrong or unjust.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopts Jackson standard for sufficiency challenge in criminal cases; discusses standard of review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard; reasonable-doubt framework)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (former standard for factual sufficiency, overruled by Brooks)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (distinguishes legal vs. factual sufficiency; double jeopardy implications)
Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (concerning jurisdiction to set standard of review; constitutional limits)
Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (conclusive fact jurisdiction of courts of appeals; weight/preponderance review)
Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (finality and scope of appellate fact review; constitutional context)
In re King's Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1951) (articulates weighing all evidence in appellate review of fact questions)
Choate v. San Antonio & A.P. Ry. Co., 44 S.W. 69 (Tex. 1898) (distinction between questions of law vs. fact on appeal)