Ronald D. Babino v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-24-00154-CR
________________

RONALD D. BABINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23DCCR1062
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Ronald D. Babino of murder and subsequently sentenced

him to twenty-two years of incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c) (classifying murder as a first-degree

The trial court’s judgment also lists Babino’s name as “RONALD
1

BABINO[,]” “RONALD DEMARD BABINO[,]” and “RONALD DEMARD
BABINO JR[.]”
1
felony). In a single issue on appeal, Babino challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Background

Indictment

At the time of trial, Babino’s indictment alleged the following:

[Ronald Babino] did then and there, as a party or a co-conspirator,
intentionally or knowingly commit or attempt to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life, to wit: … aggravated robbery in which a
firearm was introduced, displayed, discharged or used to shoot
RICHARD SHILLOW, resulting in the death of RICHARD SHILLOW
… and said death of RICHARD SHILLOW, was caused while the
defendant was in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or
attempt of said felony[.]

Carolyn Lewis

Carloyn Lewis works as a 911 dispatcher and shift supervisor for the City of

Beaumont 911 Center. In the late-night hours of March 27, 2022, and the early

morning hours of March 28, 2022, the dispatch center received two separate calls

regarding a homicide and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Copies of the 911

calls were admitted as evidence.

Officer Michael Ballard

Officer Michael Ballard works as a patrol officer for the Beaumont Police

Department. He described his educational and professional background and stated

that he has worked for the Beaumont Police Department for five years. Ballard was

working the night of March 27, 2022, when he received a call from dispatch
2
regarding a shooting at an apartment complex. When Ballard arrived, there were

several other officers on the scene, and he observed a red Cadillac parked against a

fence, and a black male was lying on the ground beside the vehicle’s driver side

door. The victim had “a couple of gunshot wounds” and was “barely breathing[.]”

Emergency personnel arrived and began to render aid to the victim. Ballard’s body

camera footage from that night was admitted at trial. After EMS arrived, Ballard

worked as “scene security[,] keeping anyone out of the scene.”

Several surveillance video excerpts were admitted into evidence. According

to Ballard, the video evidence shows two black males with hoods over their heads

walking across the courtyard area of the Virginia Estate Manor apartment complex.

This was remarkable to Ballard because “[g]enerally in this part of the day when the

sun’s out and someone’s wearing a hoodie or their hood over their head, they’re

doing it to conceal their identity.” Ballard testified the video shows a “subject

peeking around the corner[,]” and then “running away back the direction he came.”

In another portion of the same video exhibit, Ballard testified that it shows a red

Cadillac come into the frame, and that vehicle then backs into a parking spot.

According to Ballard, “The two previous black males are walking to the complex,

now approaching the vehicle.” Someone exits the driver’s side of the red Cadillac

and speaks to the other two males, and the red Cadillac drives away. Later the two

black males appear on the video to be “standing and waiting[,]” until the red Cadillac

3
returns. The two men then approach the Cadillac, going to the “[p]assenger side and

opening up the door to speak with [the driver].” The same two men appear to then

be running away, and the driver of the red Cadillac collapses on the ground. Ballard

and emergency responders then arrive on the scene.

Describing another video, taken from a different angle, Ballard testified that

a silver Infinity appears on the video and enters through the main entrance and backs

into a parking space before two suspects exit the vehicle. The two men then walk an

indirect route in the direction of the red Cadillac. According to Ballard, another

person appears on the video and appears to be standing outside the silver Infinity.

Later, the video shows the silver Infinity “tak[ing] off[,]” the two subjects who had

approached the red Cadillac appear in frame, and the silver Infinity “stop[s], open[s]

the door,” and the two men get inside.

Michelle Ceja

Michelle Ceja is employed as a crime scene technician for the Beaumont

Police Department. Ceja stated that she has been employed as a crime scene

technician for six years and described her job duties, including documenting

evidence by taking photos, making videos, and gathering and taking swabs of

biological material. She was called to the scene on March 27, 2022, and observed a

red Cadillac in the parking lot of the apartment complex. The victim had already

been transported to the hospital, and she observed bullet casings and a white rag with

4
blood on the ground by the driver’s side of the red Cadillac. Ceja’s photographs of

the crime scene were admitted into evidence at trial. In the early morning hours of

the following day, Ceja left the scene and went to process a “silver [Infinity] vehicle

[that] was located at another apartment complex.” Photographs of the silver Infinity

were also admitted into evidence. Ceja also photographed a GMC truck found at

another location, and she noted that two guns were found inside the GMC truck.

Alize Ballard

Alize Ballard testified that she was the girlfriend of the victim, Richard

Shillow. She confirmed that on March 27, 2022, Shillow drove a red Cadillac, and

around 7:30 pm she was on the phone talking to him. During the conversation, she

heard his car make a sound indicating that he was backing up, and then Shillow

screamed out that he had been shot. She did not know if Shillow used or sold

marijuana.

Dr. Tommy Brown

Doctor Tommy Brown is a retired forensic pathologist. Brown described his

educational and professional background and estimated that he had performed over

15,000 autopsies. Brown reviewed the autopsy performed on Shillow on March 30,

2022, and stated that Shillow had two gunshot wounds, and the manner of his death

was homicide.

5
Officer Adam Little

Officer Adam Little is an officer who has worked with the Beaumont Police

Department since 2010. Little testified that he typically works the “[m]idnight” shift.

He described his professional background and noted that he is the K9 handler for the

department. In the early morning hours of March 28, 2022, Little was working with

his K9 partner when he received notification that a vehicle had been stolen but “a

subject…was able to track the location of [the] stolen vehicle.” When he reached the

area of the stolen vehicle, another officer observed a vehicle matching the stolen

vehicle’s description and was in pursuit. According to Little, this was a high-speed

chase, and the occupants of the vehicle were “attempting to evade police and not be

caught.” The high-speed chase ended in an apartment complex parking lot, and all

the vehicle’s occupants exited the car and fled on foot. Little testified he “[e]xit[ed]

out of the [police] vehicle, t[old] them to stop and brought my K9 partner with me

and then pursued them on foot until I was unable to pursue them anymore.” He

described the driver of the vehicle as having a “[b]right white shirt and red pants.”

Eventually, all the stolen vehicle’s occupants, except the driver, were apprehended.

Later, the police also located and arrested the driver. Little’s patrol car camera and

body camera footage from the chase were admitted at trial.

Surveillance footage from a gas station was also admitted into evidence.

According to Little, the video from the gas station shows a “silver [sedan] with a

6
mismatched bumper” pulling into the gas station, but no one exits the vehicle or goes

to pump gas. A black GMC pickup truck then enters the convenience store parking

lot, and the driver exits the vehicle and enters the convenience store. The GMC

pickup truck’s headlights remain on, which indicates to Little the truck is still

running. Little testified that this GMC pickup truck appears to match the vehicle

involved in the high-speed chase of the stolen vehicle. Next, according to Little, the

video shows a sedan pull up next to the GMC pickup truck. The driver of the sedan

then exits the vehicle and walks toward the front of the convenience store. Little

identified the driver of the sedan as having the same white shirt and red pants as the

individual from the high-speed chase. Little testified that the driver of the sedan

“continually looks into the driver area of the black GMC[,]” then a person in the

passenger side of the sedan “gets out and then quickly enters the driver seat of the

GMC and drives away.” Little concluded that the sedan’s occupants “watched this

vehicle pull in and watched the gentleman leave it running and then they jumped in

and stole it.” He believed the driver of the sedan “was looking to make sure there

was nobody else inside the vehicle.” Based on the surveillance footage, Little

identified Babino as the person wearing the white shirt and red pants and driving the

silver sedan that night.

7
Officer Alejandro Guadian

Officer Alejandro Guadian has worked as an officer with the Beaumont Police

Department for five years. He detailed his educational and professional background

and stated he responded to a shooting on March 27, 2022, around 7:30 pm at the

Virginia Manor Estates Apartments. He was also on patrol in the early morning

hours of March 28, 2022, and assisted the officers in pursuit of the stolen GMC

pickup truck, and “after lengthy pursuit[,]” Guadian apprehended a person whom he

identified in court as Babino. When he searched Babino, he found multiple “clear

baggies containing a green, leafy substance, which [he] suspected to be marijuana

[based on his] police training and experience[.]” During a second search, he also

found a lighter and a key to an Infinity. Guadian then transported Babino to the

Beaumont Police Station to speak to detectives and later to the Jefferson County

Correctional Facility. Footage from Guadian’s body camera was admitted at trial.

Detective Tomora Hamilton

Detective Tomora Hamilton is a detective with the Beaumont Police

Department and currently works as an investigator in the Administration

Department. Hamilton testified regarding her professional and educational

background and stated that on March 27, 2022, she was called around 7:00 pm about

a shooting at an apartment complex. When she arrived, she observed a red Cadillac

8
and the victim had already been transported to the hospital. She described what she

did that night as follows.

Speaking to officers, reviewing videos, talking to the witnesses. At one
point once the video -- once I saw the video, I was able to take
screenshots of two subjects that was shown in the video walking
towards the car. I was able to get that to PCR asking for community
assistance in identifying the suspects.

She identified the two suspects who approached the red Cadillac as Kaylon

Johnson and Joseph Freeman. Hamilton later learned the Infinity was driven by

Babino, and another passenger was identified as Charles Verdine. Hamilton stated

that Freeman was shot after he approached the red Cadillac, and Babino transported

him to Verdine’s girlfriend’s house.

Hamilton interviewed Babino after his arrest for driving the stolen black GMC

pickup truck. A copy of her interview of Babino was played for the jury. In the

interview, Babino told Hamilton he does not drive any other vehicles, but Hamilton

determined he was lying. Hamilton testified that Babino lied several times during

his interview. Babino told investigators that he was looking to “make some money[]”

that day, and that someone came up with “[a] lick” which Hamilton said is an illegal

way to make money, or “rob somebody.” Babino told Hamilton that the plan was to

give Johnson and Freeman a ride and “[g]et a lick[.]” Hamilton testified that Babino

told her that Johnson and Freeman walked up to Shillow, and Freeman was shot

during the interaction. Hamilton believed that Babino assisted Verdine in the taking

9
of the black GMC hours after dropping off Freeman and Johnson following

Shillow’s shooting. According to Hamilton, Verdine was one of the coconspirators

from the Virginia Manor Estates Apartment complex shooting. Hamilton testified

that based on her investigation, training and experience, Babino’s and Verdine’s

participation in the unauthorized use of the vehicle indicated Babino was also a

coconspirator in the shooting.

Additional surveillance video footage was admitted at trial. According to

Hamilton, the video shows a gray Infinity pulling into the parking lot of the Virgina

Manor Estates Apartment complex and initially parking closer to where it entered

the parking lot, but ultimately parking further away from the entrance. Hamilton

surmised that if the Infinity had parked closer to the red Cadillac, the driver “would

have been able to see it.” The video showed the driver of the gray Infinity wearing

a “[w]hite top, reddish pants.” Johnson and Freeman can be observed on the video

when they are exiting the Infinity, and they are wearing hoodies with the hoods

pulled over their heads. Hamilton explained this indicated Johnson and Freeman

wanted to conceal their identity, because the video showed other people wearing

shorts and t-shirts. The video shows Shillow driving into the parking lot in a red

Cadillac and going to the back of the apartment complex. Hamilton testified

that Johnson and Freeman open the passenger side door of the red

Cadillac and “[s]econds” later are observed “running away from the red Cadillac.”

10
As Johnson and Freeman start running away from the red Cadillac, the Infinity “pulls

out of the parking spot and waits.” In her opinion, although the driver of the Infinity

could not see the red Cadillac, “[h]earing the shots being fired[]” prompted the driver

to pull out of the parking spot. Hamilton testified that the video then shows the door

of the Infinity open, which aids Johnson and Freeman getting into the Infinity. The

Infinity then leaves the parking lot. Hamilton testified that the bullet casings found

in the red Cadillac match the caliber of one of the guns the police later found in the

stolen GMC pickup truck.

During cross-examination, Hamilton testified she knew that Shillow and the

Infinity’s occupants already met earlier, before the shooting, and she believed they

were setting up a drug deal. She believed that the Infinity parked where the driver of

the red Cadillac could not see the car to “give Mr. Shillow a sense of confidence that

he won’t be robbed.” She testified that she did not search Babino’s phone and that

another cell phone extraction from that night did not reveal any evidence showing

Babino’s involvement.

Jury Charge and Verdict

The jury charge instructed the jury that to find Babino guilty, the jury must

agree on the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

11
LAW SPECIFIC TO THE CASE

The defendant, Ronald D[.] Babino, stands charged by indictment with
the offense of Murder. Specifically, the accusation is that the defendant
is guilty of Murder under two alternative theories.

Party Liability

First, the state contends that Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman
committed Murder and the defendant is criminally responsible for this
offense as a party because the defendant solicited, encouraged, directed,
aided or attempted to aid Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman in
committing it.

Co-conspirator Liability

Second, the state contends that Kaylon Johnson and/or Joseph Freeman
committed Murder and the defendant is criminally responsible for this
offense as a co-conspirator.

[…]

A person commits the offense of Murder if the person commits or
attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course
of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate
flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to
commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of
an individual.

A person commits the offense of Aggravated Robbery if, in the course
of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the
property, the person intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death and uses or exhibits
a deadly weapon.

[…]

A member of a conspiracy to commit one felony offense is guilty of
another felony offense committed by one of his co-conspirators when
that other felony offense was committed in furtherance of the original
12
unlawful conspiracy and was one that should have been anticipated as
a result of the unlawful conspiracy. Under those circumstances, all co-
conspirators are guilty of the felony offense actually committed by one
member of the conspiracy, though the rest of them had no intent to
commit it.

A defendant conspires with others to commit a felony offense if—

1. the defendant intends that a felony offense be committed;

2. the defendant agrees with one or more persons that one or more
of them engage in conduct that would constitute the felony
offense; and

3. one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the
agreement.

Murder and Aggravated Robbery are felony offenses.

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each
of the elements of the offense of Murder, and you all agree the state has
proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element l or 2 listed above,
meaning you do not find that the parties and/or co-conspirators acted in
self-defense, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

The jury found Babino guilty of murder, and on appeal, Babino asserts the

evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.

Analysis

The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the evidence and the weight

to be given to that evidence. Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App.

2020). As such, the jury is responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony, is

free to believe some, all, or none of a witness’s testimony, and may assign as much

or as little weight to a witness’s testimony as it sees fit. Id. Jurors may also draw
13
reasonable inferences from the evidence. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). “[A]n inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts

and deducing a logical consequence from them.” Id. at 16.

When examining whether a criminal conviction is supported by legally

sufficient evidence, we compare the evidence to the elements of the offense as

defined by a hypothetically correct charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We consider all the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the verdict, along with the inferences that could reasonably be drawn

from the evidence. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. We do not assess the credibility of

the evidence, reweigh the evidence, nor substitute our judgment for that of the jury.

See Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction if any rational trier

of fact could have found each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979). “Each fact

need not point directly and independently to a defendant’s guilt, as long as the

cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the

conviction.” Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)

(citation omitted); see also Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 761–62 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2023) (citation omitted) (“A proper review of evidentiary sufficiency considers

the cumulative force of the evidence.”).

14
A person commits murder if he “intentionally or knowingly causes the death

of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1). “Murder is a ‘result of

conduct’ offense, which means that the culpable mental state relates to the result of

the conduct, i.e., the causing of the death.” Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398, 400

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citation omitted). A person acts intentionally with respect

to a result of his conduct “when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in

the conduct or cause the result.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(a). A person acts

knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct “when he is aware that his conduct

is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(b).

Under the law of parties, “[a] person is criminally responsible as a party to an

offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another

for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.” Id. § 7.01(a); Adames v. State,

353 S.W.3d 854, 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A person is criminally responsible for

an offense committed by the conduct of another if “acting with the intent to promote

or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or

attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense[.]” See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 7.02(a)(2); Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 862.“‘Evidence is sufficient to convict under

the law of parties where the defendant is physically present at the commission of the

offense and encourages its commission by words or other agreement.’” Salinas v.

State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Ransom v. State, 920

15
S.W.2d 288, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). Party participation may be shown by

events occurring before, during, and after the commission of the offense, and may

be demonstrated by actions showing an understanding and common design to do the

prohibited act. Id. at 739–40.

A criminal conspiracy arises when multiple people agree to commit an offense

and “one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.” Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 15.02(a)(2). The Texas Penal Code also provides that

If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony,
another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators
are guilty of the offense actually committed, though having no intent to
commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful
purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the
carrying out of the conspiracy.

Id. § 7.02(b). For a defendant to be found guilty as a party to the secondary offense

(here, murder), the jury must determine that the secondary offense was committed

in furtherance of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy (here, aggravated robbery)

and was one that the co-conspirators should have anticipated as a potential result of

carrying out that conspiracy. Anderson v. State, 416 S.W.3d 884, 889 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013) (concluding that the question before an appellate court is whether it was

rational for the jury to infer that the accused should have anticipated that the

secondary offense would occur as a result of the primary offense). The State is not

required to prove that the defendant actually anticipated the commission of the

16
secondary offense, “only that the crime is one that should have been anticipated.”

Id.

On this record, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Babino, Freeman

and Johnson lured Shillow to the apartment complex so they could commit an

aggravated robbery of Shillow. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury heard testimony

that Babino was looking to make money that day or “[g]et a lick[,]” which Hamilton

stated could be interpreted as a robbery. The jury also heard testimony that Babino

was the driver of the gray Infinity that day and that the car was positioned in a way

to hide from Shillow’s view when he entered the apartment complex. The same car

then picked up Freeman and Johnson after Shillow was shot and left the apartment

complex. Hamilton testified that Freeman and Johnson returned from their meeting

with Shillow with a gun. Later, the jury heard testimony that Babino worked as a

lookout to steal a GMC truck and that a gun matching the gun used to kill Shillow

was found in the stolen truck. The jury could have reasonably inferred from the

evidence that Babino, Freeman, and Johnson were armed and planned to rob

Shillow.

By his own admission to Hamilton, Babino wanted to get “a lick” or commit

a robbery that night. Babino aided or attempted to aide Freeman and Johnson in the

commission of the offense of aggravated robbery, and he is also criminally

responsible as a party to the offense of murder because his co-conspirators, Johnson

17
or Freeman, intentionally or knowingly caused Shillow’s death in furtherance of the

aggravated robbery, and the murder was a result that Babino should have anticipated

as a consequence of carrying out the conspiracy to commit the offense of aggravated

robbery. Ervin v. State, 333 S.W.3d 187, 201 (Tex. App.—Houston 2010, pet. ref’d)

(explaining a jury could find appellant committed murder “in an attempt to carry out

a conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and, though

appellant had no intent to commit the murder, it was committed in furtherance of the

unlawful purpose and should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of

the conspiracy”); Yancy v. State, No. 03-23-00251-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS

6222, at *17 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 15, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (same); Dale v. State, No. 05-24-00742-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS

4011, at *8 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 11, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (“Under the law of parties, by initiating the conspiracy that resulted

in [the victim’s] death, appellant can be found guilty of murder even if appellant did

not actually kill [the victim] himself.”). Even if Babino did not intend for Johnson

or Freeman to shoot Shillow during the robbery, a reasonable jury could have

concluded that Babino should have anticipated that a murder was possible. See

Anderson, 416 S.W.3d at 889, Ervin, 333 S.W.3d at 201. Based on the evidence, the

jury could have reasonably concluded that Babino anticipated, or should have

anticipated, the possibility that Johnson or Freeman may shoot Shillow during the

18
course of the robbery. Anderson, 416 S.W.3d at 889; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 7.02(b).

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we

conclude a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. The State offered evidence

from which a rational trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

Babino acted “with intent to promote or assist” in committing Shillow’s murder and

aided others in committing the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.01(a) (parties

to offenses); 7.02(a)(2) (criminal responsibility for conduct of another); 19.02(b)(1)

(murder). Accordingly, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s

verdict.

We overrule Babino’s issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on August 22, 2025
Opinion Delivered February 4, 2026
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

19