Ruffins v. State

691 S.W.3d 166

Anthony RUFFINS, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 03-18-00540-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Filed: April 30, 2024

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, NO. CR2016-614, THE HONORABLE DWIGHT E. PESCHEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

John G. Jasuta, Attorney at Law, Austin, TX, for appellant.

Joshua D. Presley, Assistant District Attorney, Sammy McCrary, Clayten H. Hearrel, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Comal County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, New Braunfels, TX, for State.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, and Justices Baker and Kelly

OPINION

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Anthony Ruffins was charged with the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 29.02, .03. The multi-count indictment alternatively alleged that Ruffins was guilty as a principal, as a party to the offense, and as a conspirator.¹ The indictment also contained enhancement paragraphs alleging that Ruffins had four prior felony convictions. See id. § 12.42. At the end of the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the jury found Ruffins guilty of the charged offense. Ruffins elected to have the trial court assess his punishment, and the trial court found the enhancement allegations to be true and sentenced him to life imprisonment. See id. In eleven issues on appeal, Ruffins asserted that the trial court erred by including multiple errors in the jury charge, failing to grant his motion for new trial, making a deadly weapon finding in its judgment, and imposing more court costs than were authorized. This Court sustained Ruffins’s first issue on appeal and concluded that there was error in the portion of the jury charge setting out one of the accomplice-witness instructions, determined that Ruffins was harmed by the error, and reversed the judgment of conviction. See Ruffins v. State, 613 S.W.3d 192, 197-204 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020) ("Ruffins I"). The State appealed this Court’s decision, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed our opinion after concluding that Ruffins was judicially estopped from presenting his first issue on appeal and remanded the case for this Court to address his remaining issues. See Ruffins v. State, 666 S.W.3d 636, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) ("Ruffins II") On remand, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

BACKGROUND

Ruffins was charged with committing aggravated robbery at a tattoo shop in New Braunfels, Texas. The indictment alleged that the following individuals also were involved: codefendants Olanda Taylor, Robert Ruffins,² and Kenneth McMi- chael. The alleged victim in this case was Sarah Zamora, who worked at the shop with her husband. At the time of the offense, a customer, Tony Hernandez, was in the shop. During the guilt-innocence phase, Zamora and Hernandez both testified. In addition, two law-enforcement officers—Detectives Richard Groff and John Mahoney—testified regarding their investigation in this case. Further, codefendant Gustavo Trevino provided testimony regarding the robbery, including his role in facilitating the robbery, and David Hogarth testified regarding his knowledge of events leading up to and following the robbery. Audio and visual recordings from surveillance cameras inside the shop were also admitted into evidence.

The surveillance footage showed four African American men wearing masks entering the shop at night while carrying handguns with several of the men wearing gloves. One man was wearing a white hat. A second man was wearing a dark shirt. The third man was wearing shorts with a red stripe. And the fourth man was wearing shorts with a white stripe. In addition, the footage showed the man in the white hat kick Zamora in the head before pointing a gun at her head and directing her to a cash register and to a safe and showed the man remove the safe from a cabinet before the man in the dark shirt placed the safe in a bag. The man in the white hat and the other three men are seen repeatedly kicking Hernandez’s head and using their pistols to hit his head before dragging him around the floor. The footage shows the man in the dark shirt, the man wearing shorts with a red stripe, and the man wearing shorts with a white stripe leaving the shop and one of those men stating that it was time to leave before the man in the white hat is seen walking down the stairs and leaving the shop.

Zamora and Hernandez testified about the events on the night in question and the injuries that they and Zamora’s husband sustained, but neither was able to identify Ruffins as one of the offenders. Zamora and Hernandez both testified that the offenders took their cell phones.

After Zamora and Hernandez testified, Detective Groff explained that in his initial investigation of this case, he used the "Find My iPhone" app to locate the two stolen phones and determined that the phones were in the custody of a woman and her son who lived at the Palms Apartments in San Antonio. Detective Groff testified that the woman explained that codefendant Taylor had given her the phones. Detective Groff also stated that the police found a safe in the dumpster of the apartment complex and that the safe was consistent with the one stolen from the tattoo shop.

Next, Detective Mahoney testified that his investigation in this case led him to believe that the following people were involved in the robbery: Ruffins and codefendants Taylor, McMichael, Trevino, and Robert. Further, Detective Mahoney stated that he learned through his investigation that Taylor, Robert, and Ruffins were all related. Next, Detective Mahoney stated that his review of surveillance footage of businesses near the tattoo shop showed a white Volvo driving toward the shop shortly before the robbery, and he learned in his investigation that codefendant Trevino owned a white Volvo.

Additionally, Detective Mahoney testified that he interviewed codefendant Taylor after the cell phones had been recovered and after Taylor had been arrested for a separate offense. Taylor provided information furthering his investigation.

During his investigation, he reviewed Taylor’s Facebook page to attempt to identify other suspects in the case, and his social media search led him to the Facebook pages for Ruffins and codefendants Robert and McMichael. Detective Mahoney related that he learned from Ruffins’s page that Ruffins’s nickname was "Poohbear," and when Detective Mahoney listened to the surveillance footage from the tattoo shop, he heard someone say, "Let’s go, let’s go, Poohbear" before the man in the white hat came down the stairs and then later heard someone say "Pooh." Detective Mahoney described how Ruffins referred to codefendant McMichael as his "shooter" in a Facebook post months before the offense in which Ruffins used emojis for knives, guns, money, and money bags. Further, Detective Mahoney explained that his online research of the Facebook pages showed pictures of Ruffins and codefendants Robert and Taylor each wearing a white hat similar to the one in the surveillance footage. Detective Mahoney stated that although the four men in the surveillance footage were wearing masks, the footage captured a unique tattoo on one of the men’s arms, and Detective Mahoney explained that codefendant McMichael had a tattoo on his arm that looked like the one in the surveillance footage.

Moreover, Detective Mahoney testified that he learned from the Palms Apartments’ residents that Hogarth was linked with some of the individuals discussed above and that Detective Mahoney saw Ruffins talking with Hogarth when he drove to the apartment complex to talk to Hogarth but that Ruffins left before Detective Mahoney approached Hogarth. Detective Mahoney stated that he learned that Hogarth had information related to the robbery and that he obtained a search warrant for Hogarth’s phone. The search of the phone revealed a text thread between Hogarth and codefendant Trevino in which Trevino told Hogarth what to tell the police and told Hogarth to get a lawyer. Further, Detective Mahoney testified that Hogarth initially was uncooperative and lied to the police about whether he knew anything about the offense but later cooperated with the police by providing information about the offense and those involved. Similarly, Detective Mahoney related that Hogarth stated that he was afraid of Ruffins and that Ruffins had threatened to hurt him if he testified. Moreover, Detective Mahoney testified that he believed that Hogarth told Trevino’s wife not to cooperate with the police. Detective Mahoney stated that Hogarth told him that he went to the tattoo shop with codefendants Taylor and Trevino days before the offense but that he did not learn that Taylor and Trevino were planning to rob the shop until they were driving home from the shop. When describing Hogarth’s involvement in this case, Detective Mahoney testified that there was no evidence that Hogarth encouraged anyone to participate in the robbery or aided or attempted to aid anyone in the commission of the robbery.

Furthermore, Detective Mahoney stated that a search of Ruffms’s father’s apartment at the Palms Apartments led to the discovery of a gun and a pair of gloves. Additionally, Detective Mahoney recalled that when he showed codefendant Robert’s mother a picture of the masked man in the white hat from the surveillance footage of the tattoo shop, she stated that the man was Robert and not Ruffins. Regarding Ruffins’s arrest, Detective Mahoney stated that Ruffins did not react when shown the violent footage from the robbery. Further, Detective Mahoney testified that while Ruffins denied any involvement in the case, he also made unusual statements such as "[i]f you say I did it, I did it." Detective Mahoney related that Ruffins stated that he was with his girlfriend, Shante Benton, on the night of the offense but did not provide her contact information. When discussing Benton, Detective Mahoney mentioned that his search of Ruffins’s Facebook page indicated that he was romantically involved with...