Dawkins v. State

Appellant raises three issues on appeal. In issues one and two, he complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove the elements of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, respectively. In issue three, appellant contends that his conviction for both offenses violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. Because the counts are facially duplicative, a double jeopardy violation has occurred. Therefore, the conviction for the most serious offense (aggravated robbery) is affirmed, and the conviction for aggravated assault is vacated. Therefore, issue two is now moot. As for the first issue, the only question is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of the officer, as well as that of the fingerprint examiners, further corroborate the robbery victim's account of the robbery by affirmatively matching appellant's fingerprints to those lifted from the victim's car. Based on all the evidence, a rational juror could have found the evidence sufficient to prove the element of identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant's conviction and sentence as to aggravated robbery are affirmed. El Paso Court of Appeals, No. 08-09-00217-CR, 04-06-2011

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

Anthony Wayne Dawkins was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (Count I) and aggravated assault with the same deadly weapon (Count II). A jury returned a verdict of guilty as to both counts and assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment per offense. Appellant was sentenced accordingly and ordered to serve his sentences concurrently. Appellant raises three issues on appeal. In Issues One and Two, he complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove the elements of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, respectively. In Issue Three, Appellant contends that his conviction for both offenses violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we reform the judgment in part and affirm as reformed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Dawkins v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Texas Lawyer