In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-24-00330-CR
ANTHONY DUANE RILEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 1A District Court
Jasper County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15156JD
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Anthony Duane Riley appeals his conviction for aggravated
robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. In his sole issue on appeal, Riley
complains the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he
used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing a robbery against the
complainant. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
1
BACKGROUND
A grand jury indicted Riley for aggravated robbery, alleging that Riley, the
defendant:
did while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent
to obtain or maintain control of the property, intentionally and
knowingly threaten or place [Carol], 1 in fear of imminent bodily injury
or death, and the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely
a machete[.]
During a jury trial, Officer Frank Erimias, who was with the Kirbyville Police
Department when the alleged offense occurred, testified that he was on patrol when
he received a call that there was a “suspicious person, black male, wearing a white
hoodie, dark pants that was exhibiting some type of weapon[]” at the Family Dollar
Store. After learning the suspect took money and left and that a robbery had
occurred, Erimias proceeded to the store and requested additional units that quickly
responded. Erimias spoke to the store clerk and manager, who both provided a
written statement describing the suspect, a weapon they believed Riley had during
the robbery, and the bag of money he took along with a Scope product.
Erimias went to the location where a man who matched the description of the
suspect had been identified and apprehended. The man in custody was identified as
1
We use pseudonyms to refer to the victims, including the complainant, to protect all victims’ privacy. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process”).
2
Riley. Upon arrival where Riley was being held, Erimias observed a white hoodie
sweatshirt next to Riley and there was a “sickle-shape, machete-type knife[]” fifteen
to twenty feet away from where Riley was lying. Erimias explained that the machetetype knife had a handle like one seen on a short-barreled shotgun with a bird’s head
grip on it and a blade that came down and sickled in like a brush cutter. Erimias also
found and collected the plastic bag from the store that contained $1,361.95 and the
Scope product. The jury viewed a video recording from Erimias’ body camera,
which captured the events. The jury also viewed the weapon recovered from the
scene, and Erimias explained that one of the women thought the weapon was a knife
and the other woman thought it was a sawed-off shotgun. Erimias described the
machete knife as being a “scary-looking weapon[,]” and he understood how the
handle could have been mistaken for some form of firearm. Erimias testified that the
knife was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Erimias explained that
although Riley had been nice and polite to the women at the store, Erimias charged
Riley with aggravated robbery because Riley scared the women with a deadly
weapon and stole money from them and could have killed them.
Deputy Shannon Davis Jr. was working patrol with the Jasper County
Sheriff’s Office when he responded to a call about a robbery at the Family Dollar
Store in Kirbyville. While checking the surrounding area for the suspect who
reportedly had a possible weapon, Davis found and tased Riley, who matched the
3
suspect’s description. Davis found a large blade that was commonly referred to as a
machete stuffed in Riley’s pants with the handle sticking out. Davis identified the
blade that was admitted into evidence as the blade Riley was carrying on the night
of the robbery. Davis also found a pack of Scope gum on the ground where Riley
had been lying. The jury viewed a video recording taken from Davis’s body camera.
Carol, the manager of the Family Dollar Store in Kirbyville, testified that she
and Barbara were working on the night the robbery occurred. Carol explained that
as they were about to close the store, a man wearing a white hoodie and black pants
put a pack of Scope gum on the counter and told her to “give me all the money.”
When Carol “kind of laughed” and told the man “that’s not funny[,]” the man pulled
his hoodie up and patted his side, causing Carol to notice that he had a big, wooden
handle sticking out of his waistband. Carol explained she was nervous because it
looked like a homemade handle of a knife, and noticing the big handle of the knife
scared Carol because she thought something was going to happen to Barbara. Carol
stated that Barbara believed the man had a sawed-off shotgun, and she agreed that
the man never took the weapon out of his pants or threatened to cut her.
Carol was scared and believed that the man would hurt her or Barbara if she
did not do what he said, but Carol stayed calm due to her training. Carol explained
that the man did not verbally threaten her or state he was going to use the knife, but
he had his hand on the knife and patted his side, which was scary “enough[]” to
4
know they were in danger because Carol knew how much damage knives could
cause. Carol gave the man the money in the drawers and the top safe and put the
money in a bag, and when she told the man there were cameras and it would take ten
minutes to open the bottom safe, he pulled down his black COVID mask and
revealed he had a full, peppered beard. The man took the bag of money and Scope
and “said thank you and then walked out.” Carol immediately called 911, and the
police arrived before she completed the call. The jury viewed the video recording of
the robbery captured on the store’s surveillance cameras.
Barbara testified that she was working as a cashier at the Family Dollar Store
when the robbery occurred. Barbara explained that a man came to the register to buy
a package of travel Scope and then asked her to hand him all the money, raised up
his hoodie, showed Barbara what she thought was a pistol in the waistband of his
pants, patted the handle, and demanded money. Barbara described the man as
wearing a dark-colored COVID mask, white hoodie, and dark-colored jogging pants.
Barbara explained that during the robbery, she tried to keep calm and thought about
whether she would make it home to her children if the man used the weapon.
Barbara explained that the man did not show the weapon “too good or too
often[,]” but he showed it twice leading her to believe the weapon was a pistol grip
or a grip of a sawed-off shotgun. Barbara testified that although the man never pulled
the weapon out of his waistband, she did not need to know exactly what the weapon
5
was to feel threatened or fear being hurt. Barbara stated that the handle of the knife
that was admitted into evidence looked like the handle of the weapon she saw in the
man’s waistband when he committed the robbery. Barbara also stated she felt scared
and threatened even though the man was nice and polite during the robbery. Barbara
explained that the store had surveillance cameras in the register area. The video
recording from the store’s surveillance cameras supports Carol’s and Barbara’s
testimonies that Riley showed them a weapon and patted the weapon when he
demanded that they give him all the money.
The jury found Riley guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment
and assessed Riley’s punishment as a habitual offender at thirty-five years of
confinement.
ANALYSIS
In his sole issue, Riley complains that the evidence is legally insufficient to
support the jury’s finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of
committing a robbery against the complainant.
We review complaints of legal insufficiency under the standard in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). See Fernandez v. State, 479 S.W.3d 835,
837-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Under Jackson, we ask “whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson,
6
443 U.S. at 319 (citation omitted); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the jury’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in
testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the above
evidence. See Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation
omitted). We presume the jury resolved any conflicts in testimony in favor of the
verdict. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13. We treat direct and circumstantial
evidence equally and “consider the combined and cumulative force of the evidence”
viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See Clayton v. State, 235
S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation omitted).
A person commits the offense of robbery if, in the course of committing theft,
he intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2). A person commits the
offense of aggravated robbery if he commits robbery and uses or exhibits a deadly
weapon. Id. § 29.03(a)(2). A “deadly weapon” is “anything that in the manner of its
use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. §
1.07(a)(17)(B). An alleged robber’s implicit threats may lead to a victim’s being
placed in fear so long as the defendant’s actions are “of such nature as in reason and
common experience is likely to induce a person to part with property against his
will,” because any perceived threat of imminent bodily injury will support a finding
7
that the victim was threatened or placed in fear. Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137,
138-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
While a knife is not a deadly weapon per se, the State can establish that a knife
is a deadly weapon by showing that “the person using it intends to use it in a way in
which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Magana v.
State, 230 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d). In cases
where there is no sustained injury, the State must rely on the following factors to
establish that a knife is a deadly weapon: (1) the size, shape, and sharpness of the
blade; (2) the manner of the knife’s use or intended use; (3) evidence of its lifethreatening capabilities; (4) the distance between the knife and the victim; and (5)
any words spoken by the person using the knife. Id. The jury may consider the size,
shape, and sharpness of the knife in determining whether the knife is capable of
causing death or serious bodily injury. Clark v. State, 444 S.W.3d 671, 678 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d).
The jury may also use common sense and apply common knowledge and
experience when giving effect to the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from
the evidence. Gerron v. State, 524 S.W.3d 308, 318 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, pet.
ref’d). A person “uses or exhibits a deadly weapon” under the aggravated robbery
statute if he employs the weapon in any manner that “facilitates the associated
felony.” McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing
8
Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). The word “use”
is commonly employed to describe conduct in which the verb’s object–a deadly
weapon–is utilized to achieve a purpose, which means the deadly weapon must be
utilized, employed, or applied to achieve the intended result of committing a felony
offense. Patterson, 769 S.W.2d at 940-41.
Riley complains the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s deadly
weapon finding because Carol and Barbara never saw a blade and he did not brandish
or gesture with the knife, make any threats, or try to close the distance between
himself and the employees who were separated by the sales counter. Riley argues
the evidence does not show he “used” a deadly weapon and only shows he “twice
patted a concealed handle while calmly asking for money.” We disagree.
Carol testified that she saw a big, wooden handle that looked like a knife
handle sticking out of Riley’s waistband and that Riley patted the handle, causing
her to be scared and upset. Carol knew they were in danger when she saw the knife,
and she believed Riley would hurt her or Barbara if she did not do what he said and
give him the money.
Barbara felt scared and threatened when Riley raised his hoodie and twice
showed her what she thought was a firearm in the waistband of his pants. Barbara
explained that Riley patted the handle of the weapon when he demanded the money.
9
Erimias testified that he found a “sickle-shape, machete-type knife[]” fifteen
to twenty feet away from where Riley was lying. Erimias understood how the handle
of the knife could have been mistaken for a firearm. Erimias testified that the knife
was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Erimias charged Riley with
aggravated robbery because Riley scared Carol and Barbara with a deadly weapon
while stealing money.
Based on this record, we hold that due to the exposure of the handle in Riley’s
waistband and Riley’s tapping on the handle while demanding money during the
robbery, the jury could have rationally concluded that Riley did not merely possess
a knife but partially exposed the handle of the knife during the criminal transaction
and used its presence to cause fear of imminent bodily injury or death in Carol and
Barbara to reduce the likelihood they would resist his demands. Thus, the evidence
supports the jury’s finding that Riley used a deadly weapon by employing the
weapon in a manner that facilitated Carol’s and Barbara’s cooperation so he could
achieve his intended result of committing a robbery. See McCain, 22 S.W.3d at 502-03; Patterson, 769 S.W.2d at 940-41; Brown v. State, No. 09-10-00233-CR, 2011
WL 1204016, at **1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 30, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication). Additionally, Erimias testified that the knife was
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, and the jury viewed the knife
10
during trial and was able to observe its characteristics and determine whether it was
capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. See Clark, 444 S.W.3d at 678.
After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, we
conclude the jury could have found the essential elements of the crime of aggravated
robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Accordingly, we
conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding that Riley
used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing the robbery. We
overrule Riley’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on May 13, 2026
Opinion Delivered July 15, 2026
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
11