TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00847-CR
NO. 03-24-00848-CR
NO. 03-24-00849-CR
Syrknoreon Dewuntrel Pilgram, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 83781, THE HONORABLE STEVEN J. DUSKIE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Syrknoreon Dewuntrel Pilgram challenges his convictions for one
count of murder and two counts of aggravated assault arising out of a shooting at a house that left
one person dead and two people injured. In three issues, he challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Lance Reyes 1 testified that he was at home when he heard gunshots and went
outside to check on his brother, Kesi Reyes, who was often working in the yard. He saw his
brother running from across the street. His brother said, “they shot me.” Lance helped his
1
Because both Lance and Kesi share a last name, we will refer to them by their first names for clarity.
brother lay down on the porch and attempted to treat his wounds until emergency responders
arrived. He then ran across the street to the house where his brother had been shot to see if
anyone else needed help. He testified that he saw an unresponsive person face down on the back
porch bleeding. A 911 call requesting help for Kesi that was made by Lance’s wife was admitted
and played for the jury.
Officer Scott Gillman testified that he was the first officer to arrive at the
crime-scene house. He approached from the back of the house and detained two individuals—
one who came out of the house and one who came from the side of the house. He testified that
the person who exited the house was identified by another officer as Ellis Martin, also known as
Papa Locks. Officer Gillman testified that he then began a “protective sweep” of the house. He
entered through the back door, past the deceased victim on the porch. He identified a shooting
victim inside the house—later identified as Johne Fisher—and stayed with him while other
officers continued through the house. A video recording from Officer Gillman’s bodycam from
the night of the shooting was admitted into evidence.
Officer Michael Frost testified that he responded to the 911 call at Lance’s house.
He testified that Kesi had been shot in the arm and the hip. Officer Frost applied a tourniquet to
Kesi’s arm to stop the bleeding. Kesi told Officer Frost that the shooter was “Dee,” and that Dee
is Papa Locks’ grandson. After EMS and other officers arrived at Lance’s residence, Officer
Frost went across the street to the crime-scene house. He described it as a “trap house,” which
he explained is usually an abandoned house primarily used by homeless individuals and people
using drugs. Officer Frost testified that he saw a deceased victim face down and bleeding on the
back porch. He later identified the victim as Asher Kitchens, who he knew and recognized from
2
arresting him a few months prior for possession of methamphetamine. As he and other officers
entered the house, they found another victim who had been shot—Fisher.
Officer Frost testified that after the house had been cleared and secured, he started
collecting statements from witnesses. He testified that two men had been detained by other
officers before Officer Frost arrived. One of those men identified himself to Officer Frost as
Papa Locks. Officer Frost testified that Papa Locks gave him a description of the people
involved in the shooting.2 Papa Locks told Officer Frost that he was living in the shed in the
backyard. A video recording from Officer Frost’s bodycam from the night of the shooting was
admitted into evidence. Officer Frost testified that based on his conversation with Papa Locks,
he identified Pilgram as the suspected shooter. Officer Frost testified that he released Papa
Locks after talking to him because he had been a cooperative witness and agreed to make a
written statement. 3
Kesi testified about the night he was shot. He testified that the house was
Vanessa’s 4 house and that she lived there with her boyfriend, Fisher. Kesi testified that he was
sitting at a table with Fisher and Kitchens when Pilgram and Papa Locks walked into the house.
He testified that Papa Locks is homeless and was staying in the shed in the backyard at the time
of the shooting. However, he did not know where Papa Locks resided at the time of trial. Kesi
testified that when Papa Locks entered the room that night, he was acting abnormally and did not
greet him the way he normally would.
2
Officer Frost did not testify about the details of Papa Locks’ statements to him about the people involved in the shooting. He testified that when he spoke with Papa Locks, the emergency had ended and he was in the “preliminary investigation phase.”
3
No written statement from Papa Locks was admitted into evidence.
4
No witness identified Vanessa by her last name, only as, “Vanessa.”
3
Kesi described Pilgram’s behavior that night as “execution style.” Kesi testified
that Pilgram entered the room, grabbed Kitchens, and held a gun to Kitchens’ head. Kesi
testified that Pilgram was the only person in the room with a weapon. Kesi testified that he
unsuccessfully attempted to deescalate the situation. He testified that Pilgram shot him twice —
once in his forearm and once through his stomach. Kesi testified that he fell to the floor and
counted five additional shots. He explained that counting gunshots is a skill he developed in the
military. Kesi agreed on direct-examination that he “observed” Pilgram shoot Kitchens and
Fisher, but on cross-examination he explained that he did not see Kitchens or Fisher get shot
because he was shot first.
Kesi testified that after counting the shots, he stood up, ran out of the house,
jumped over Kitchens’ body, and ran to his brother’s house, where he received medical
treatment. He testified that he was in the hospital for two weeks and then had a homecare nurse
for about three months. He testified that the gunshot wound to his forearm required surgery and
follow-up care to prevent infection and to avoid needing to be amputated. He testified that he
was presented with a photo array by a police officer that came to his house.
During his testimony, Kesi Reyes identified Pilgram as the person who shot him.
He testified that “Dewan” shot him. 5 He also testified that he was “100 percent” sure that the
person he identified in the photo array is the person who shot him, Kitchens, and Fisher. He
explained that he knew Papa Locks, Papa Locks’ wife, and “Dwan” prior to the shooting.
Kesi admitted that at the time of trial he was on probation for “substance abuse”
and that he had recently completed a treatment program for methamphetamine abuse as a
condition of his probation. He also admitted that people, including Fisher, did methamphetamine
5
During his testimony, Kesi referred to Pilgram as “Dewan” and “Dwan.”
4
at Vanessa’s house. When asked about why he was at a place that law enforcement calls a “trap
house,” he responded that Fisher is his friend and that they visited each other’s house’s “all the
time.” He explained that he lived in a “shack” in the backyard of his brother’s house across the
street from Vanessa’s. He testified that Vanessa’s house was not a trap house but rather a home.
He testified that he and Fisher were not smoking methamphetamine the night of the shooting.
He testified that he and Fisher were talking about God when Pilgram entered the house. He also
denied smoking methamphetamine the day of the shooting.
Kesi agreed that he told the police the night of the shooting that he had been shot
by a 9-millimeter handgun, that he had written in his statement that it was a .45 caliber handgun,
and that he was later told that the retrieved shell casings were from a .40 caliber handgun. When
asked why he did not recognize the correct caliber of weapon despite his military experience,
Kesi stated that he cannot identify the exact caliber of small handguns but knew it was a
handgun. Kesi’s medical records were admitted into evidence.
Officer Brandon Bringhurst testified that he conducted the safety sweep of the
crime-scene house along with Officer Gillman. He testified that when he arrived on the scene he
saw “several subjects” exiting the house. He testified that they were all detained. Officer
Bringhurst testified that he spoke with Fisher in the back of an ambulance. Fisher told him that
Dee had shot him. He described Dee as “a black male with a flat haircut about 6 foot tall and
slender build and approximately 28 to 30 years of age.” A photo of Pilgram taken a couple of
days after the shooting was admitted into evidence to show what he looked like at that time.
Officer Bringhurst testified that Fisher told him that he had seen Dee before the day of the
shooting “on the streets.” He testified that he went to the hospital to get an additional statement
5
from Fisher. He testified that Fisher told him that Dee went into the residence, argued with the
people in the room, and then started shooting within a couple of minutes.
Fisher testified that he was shot while at his friend Vanessa’s house. He testified
that Papa Locks and Dee arrived at Vanessa’s house and then Dee put Kitchens in a headlock.
Fisher then heard gunshots and was shot once in each leg. He explained that he did not see the
gun because Kesi was in front of him, but he heard the shots. Fisher testified that he did not
know why he was shot. During his testimony, Fisher identified Pilgram as Dee. He testified that
“Dee shot [him].” He testified that he participated in a photo array to identify the shooter. He
testified that Papa Locks stayed in the shed in the backyard sometimes. He testified that he did
not live with Vanessa, but instead lived “everywhere,” stayed with friends, and considered
himself homeless. He testified that the house was not a trap house or drug house, but rather “was
just a home.” He testified that he did not know Dee’s real name until he read it in the paper,
which included a photo of Dee.
Stephen Hastings testified as an expert in forensic pathology. He testified that he
was the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on Kitchens’ body. Kitchens tested
positive for methamphetamine. Kitchens was shot in the upper back by a gun held within three
feet of him. Hastings testified that Kitchens’ death was caused by the gunshot wound and that
the manner of death was homicide.
Detective Jonathan Mueller testified that he was the homicide detective assigned
to this case. He testified that he had been familiar with the crime-scene house prior to the
shooting. He described it as a “trap house or squatter residence.” Photos from the crime scene
were admitted into evidence. He testified that his investigation determined that Kitchens was
found deceased on the back porch of the house after falling forward with a gunshot wound to his
6
back. Fisher was found inside the house with gunshot wounds to his legs. Detective Mueller
determined that Ellis Martin, also known as Papa Lock, 6 was living in the shed outside the
house. He testified that based on the information obtained from Fisher, Kesi, and Papa Lock, he
identified Pilgram as the suspected shooter.
Detective Mueller testified that he unsuccessfully attempted to locate Papa Lock
for trial. He explained that Papa Lock was homeless and had a warrant for his arrest. The
detective had worked with a community outreach group to attempt to locate him and personally
looked for him at soup kitchens, under bridges, and in wooded areas around town. Detective
Mueller testified that a photo array was shown to Fisher the day after the shooting and to Kesi
about a month after the shooting. Video footage of both photo arrays being conducted was
admitted. Detective Mueller testified that both Fisher and Kesi identified Pilgram as the man
who shot them. Fisher and Kesi stated that they were 100 percent certain. Detective Mueller
testified that police officers located Pilgram two days after the shooting. The detective testified
that Pilgram attempted to flee but was taken into custody.
On cross-examination, Detective Mueller testified that he collected DNA samples
from Pilgram and from the crime scene, but none of the crime-scene samples were tested and no
comparison was made between Pilgram’s DNA sample and any of the crime-scene evidence. He
agreed that when the photo array was shown to Kesi, about a month after the shooting, Pilgram’s
photo had been in the newspaper and on social media. Detective Mueller testified that he did not
know who Vanessa was and did not know how long Fisher had been staying in the house.
Detective Mueller testified that he did not find any drugs in the house. He explained that he was
6
Throughout the trial, the State referred to this individual as both “Papa Lock” and “Papa Locks,” and some witnesses referred to him as “Lock” and others as “Locks.”
7
not focused on finding drugs, but if he had seen any drugs while looking for cartridge casings, he
would have seized them as well. He also testified that they were unable to find the firearm used
in the shooting.
When asked whether a methamphetamine user would be a reliable witness,
Detective Mueller testified that although it is normal for drug users to not admit their own
crimes, when they are discussing crimes that they are not involved in they “are your best
witnesses.” He explained that his confidential informants are “all drug users,” and that the
context of the situation matters. When asked about Kesi misidentifying the gun used to shoot
him, the detective responded that it “happens all the time” and that it is difficult for even him to
identify a gun by caliber.
Pilgram testified in his own defense. He denied shooting Kitchens, Fisher, or
Kesi. He denied being at the crime-scene house the night of the shooting. He denied knowing
Ellis Martin or Papa Lock. He denied that anyone named Ellis Martin or Papa Lock was his
step-grandfather. On cross-examination he agreed that he had four prior felony convictions—
one burglary conviction, two possession of controlled substance convictions, and one unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon conviction. He testified that he could not remember where he
was the night of the shooting.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury found Pilgram guilty of the murder of
Kitchens and the aggravated assaults of Kesi and Fisher. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 19.02(b),
22.02(a)(2). Pilgram pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph alleging that he had previously
committed the felony offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court assessed punishment at
fifty years’ imprisonment for each offense to run concurrently. See id. §§ 12.32, 12.42(b)–(c)1,
19.02(c), 22.02(b). Pilgram appeals.
8
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined in a hypothetically correct jury charge, which is “one that accurately sets out the law, is
authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or
unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular
offense for which the defendant was tried.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1997). “When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “This standard requires the appellate court to defer ‘to the
responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). “We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder.” Id. Although factfinders “may not speculate about the meaning of facts
or evidence,” they are permitted to “draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as
each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. at 733. “We presume that the
factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we
defer to that resolution.” Id. This is because the factfinders are “the exclusive judges of the
facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony.” Id. “Direct
evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone
may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating
circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Id. Further, we consider all evidence that
9
was admitted at trial regardless of whether it was properly admitted. See Moff v. State,
131 S.W.3d 485, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
DISCUSSION
Regarding the murder charge, the State had to prove that Pilgram intentionally
and knowingly caused the death of Kitchens by shooting him with a firearm. See Tex. Penal
Code § 19.02(b)(1). Regarding the aggravated assault charges, the State had to prove that
Pilgram intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Kesi and Fisher by
shooting them with a firearm. See id. § 22.02.
The only element that Pilgram contends the evidence is insufficient to support is
his identity as the shooter. Specifically, he contends that the two eyewitnesses—Kesi and
Fisher—were not credible and complains that the State did not present any corroborating
evidence to support that he was the person who shot the three victims.
Here, the evidence that Pilgram was the shooter who killed Kitchens and injured
Kesi and Fisher is sufficient. Two witnesses—Kesi and Fisher—who were in the room at the
time of the shooting, testified that a man they had seen before, and knew as “Dee” or “Dewan,”
walked in and shot them and Kitchens. They both individually told officers the night of the
shooting that it was “Dee” that shot them. Kesi told officers that Dee is Papa Locks’ grandson
and the police used that information in their investigation to identify Pilgram as their suspect.
When Pilgram was arrested in connection to the shooting, he attempted to flee, according to
Detective Mueller. See Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (explaining
that “[e]vidence of flight or escape is admissible as a circumstance from which an inference of
guilt may be drawn”). Both Kesi and Fisher identified Pilgram as the shooter in a photo array,
10
and the jury was shown video footage of both photo arrays being conducted as well as the photos
that were used in them. Both Kesi and Fisher identified Pilgram as the shooter during their
trial testimony.
Pilgram contends that the jury could not have rationally believed Kesi’s
eyewitness identification of Pilgram as the shooter because he has a history of drug use and was
in a place known for drug use when he was shot. Although there was evidence presented that
Kesi and Fisher have a history of methamphetamine use, Kesi testified that neither he nor Fisher
were using methamphetamine at the time. Detective Mueller testified that he did not find any
drugs in the house. Further, even if the jury disbelieved Kesi’s testimony that he and Fisher were
sober at the time, an eyewitness’s intoxication does not automatically render the evidence
insufficient to support a conviction. See Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 237 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002) (holding that even if witness “was under the influence of cocaine at the time the assault
occurred, that would not render the evidence legally insufficient”); Karpeal v. State, 628 S.W.2d
520, 524 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982, pet. ref’d) (holding that witness’s “testimony as to the
beer he had consumed and that he was fairly inebriated goes only to the weight to be given his
testimony, not his credibility nor the sufficiency of the evidence,” citing Herrera v. State,
462 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)).
Pilgram also contends that Kesi’s testimony was insufficient to prove that he was
the shooter because of what he identifies as multiple inconsistences in Kesi’s testimony and the
other evidence. Specifically, he emphasizes that Kesi stated that he had military experience and
then was unable to identify the caliber of weapon used to shoot him. However, Detective
Mueller testified that this is common and that it is difficult for people to identify the caliber of
guns by sight. Pilgram also emphasizes that Kesi agreed with the prosecutor when asked if he
11
“observed” Pilgram shoot Kitchens and Fisher and then later testified that he did not see them get
shot because he was shot first. He also emphasizes that Kesi’s identification of Pilgram in the
photo array occurred a month after the shooting and after Pilgram had been identified in the
media. However, “[i]nconsistencies in testimony alone do not destroy the sufficiency of the
evidence.” Muhammad v. State, 814 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991),
aff’d, 830 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the jury verdict, we cannot conclude that the jurors’ resolution of the alleged inconsistencies
was unreasonable.
Pilgram contends that Fisher’s identification of him was insufficient because
Fisher did not actually see the shooter fire the gun because Kesi was in front of Fisher when the
shots were fired. However, Fisher testified that he saw Pilgram—known to him as Dee—enter
the residence and put Kitchens in a headlock before he heard gunshots and was shot. Kesi
testified that Pilgram was the only person in the room with a weapon. The jury could have
drawn reasonable inferences from this evidence to determine that Pilgram, the only person in the
room with a gun, is the person who shot three out of the four other people in room. See Hooper
v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explaining that if someone “is the only
person in the room with a smoking gun, then it is reasonable to infer that she shot the person on
the floor”).
Pilgram contends that the evidence is insufficient because there is no
corroborating evidence supporting the eyewitness testimony. He emphasizes that there was no
physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. There is no corroboration requirement for
eyewitness identification that is applicable here. See Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1971) (concluding that “the testimony of the eye witness alone was sufficient to
12
support the jury’s verdict”); Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d.) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support conviction
when identification of defendant was based on single eyewitness and there was no forensic
evidence presented).
Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support that Pilgram
was the person who shot and killed Kitchens and shot and injured Kesi and Fisher. We overrule
Pilgram’s three issues.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction.
Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis
Affirmed
Filed: August 28, 2026
Do Not Publish
13