Garmon, Terrish Jermaine, PD-0596-15

Background

Terrish Jermaine Garmon was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation for the theft of a motorcycle; punishment 15 years and $10,000 fine. Appeal affirmed by the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas).
Victim Jude Garcia posted a motorcycle for sale on Craigslist; a caller identified as "Terry" (phone records linked to numbers associated with Terrish Garmon) obtained the address, said he would come to view the bike, then did not show; the motorcycle was taken the same night through a small, circular hole cut in the garage door to reach the emergency release.
Police located texted photographs and phone records tying the caller numbers to the name Terrish Garmon and found at Garmon’s residence a list of motorcycle descriptions and numbers linking him to other similar incidents.
The State presented evidence of three unadjudicated similar incidents (Grand Prairie, Fort Worth, Coppell) in which sellers advertising on Craigslist received calls from the same phone number, gave an address, and the motorcycle was stolen or an attempt was made that night; two of those showed holes cut in garage doors in the same unusual manner.
The State also introduced a 2005 unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction (motorcycle stolen after a similar hole-cutting method) to connect Garmon to motorcycles stolen from garages.
The trial court admitted the extraneous-offense evidence under Rule 404(b) (identity/modus operandi and doctrine of chances) and found probative value outweighed prejudice; jury was instructed to consider extraneous-offense evidence only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt Garmon committed them and only for motive, intent, scheme, design, or identity.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Garmon's Argument	Held
Admissibility of extraneous unadjudicated offenses and prior UUMV conviction under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403	Evidence of similar, unusual method (holes cut in garage to access emergency release), same pattern of Craigslist calls, and phone numbers tied to Garmon prove identity/modus operandi; probative value outweighs prejudice	State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Garmon committed the unadjudicated offenses; evidence insufficiently ties him to those incidents; prior conviction is different offense and remote	Court affirmed admission: similarities and phone links supported identity; jury could find beyond reasonable doubt Garmon committed extraneous acts; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove burglary guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Circumstantial proof (calls/texts from numbers tied to Garmon, unique garage-entry method, pattern of similar crimes) supports identity and guilt	No direct evidence placing Garmon at the scene; no possession of stolen property or burglary tools	Court held evidence sufficient: cumulative circumstantial evidence and doctrine of chances permitted rational juror to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for review of extraneous-offense admissibility; abuse of discretion)
Fischer v. State, 268 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury must be able to find beyond a reasonable doubt defendant committed unadjudicated offenses before admission)
Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (modus operandi and identity rationale for extraneous-offense evidence)
Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (doctrine of chances explained)
Brown v. State, 96 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (discussion of doctrine of chances and similarity analysis)
Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Rule 403 presumption favoring admission of relevant evidence)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Jackson sufficiency standard applied to circumstantial evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to support conviction)