NO. 07-05-0421-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
DECEMBER 5, 2006
______________________________
JOSEPH L. VILLARREAL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2004-405761; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joseph L. Villarreal, appeals his three convictions of injury to a child and
sentences of four years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice on each of the first two convictions and 10 years incarceration probated
for 10 years for the third conviction. We affirm.
Background
In 2002, T.D.’s mother was killed in an automobile accident which led to T.D. being
placed in appellant’s care. Because of the mother’s death and the child’s subsequent
change in residence, Frances Alonzo, the school counselor, visited with T.D. weekly to help
T.D. cope with these traumatic events. In September of 2003, Lanau Limmer, one of
T.D.’s teachers, observed T.D. in an upset state and spoke with her in an attempt to learn
why she was upset. Limmer learned that appellant had hit T.D. with a coat belt which left
bruises on her. On October 10, 2003, the school nurse observed bruising that T.D.
indicated was caused by appellant hitting her with a belt. Finally, on October 17, 2003, a
second teacher noticed that T.D.’s hands were red and that she was complaining of pain.
T.D. was eight years old at the time of the first two incidents and was nine years old at the
time of the last incident. The teacher and T.D. spoke with Alonzo and the school nurse
regarding this third incident. Based on Alonzo’s ongoing involvement with T.D., information
gathered during weekly sessions with T.D., and knowledge of the previous incidents,
Alonzo asked T.D. for permission to examine her body for other injuries to which she
consented. Upon examination of T.D., Alonzo discovered that she had bruising to her
lower back, buttocks, and thighs.
Based on these three incidents, appellant was indicted and charged with three
counts of injury to a child. The indictment charging the two earlier incidents also contained
notice of the State’s intent to seek a deadly weapon finding for the use of a belt. A jury
found appellant guilty on all three counts and recommended incarceration of four years for
2
the first two counts, and 10 years probated for 10 years in the third case. Appellant
appeals the affirmative findings of the use of a deadly weapon in the first two convictions
alleging legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the deadly weapon findings.
Additionally, appellant appeals his convictions and sentences alleging legally and factually
insufficient evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.
In reviewing a claim of legal insufficiency with regard to a deadly weapon finding,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used
or exhibited a deadly weapon. See Searcy v. State, 115 S.W.3d 628, 630
(Tex.App.–Waco 2003, no pet.); Nickerson v. State, 69 S.W.3d 661, 670 (Tex.App.–Waco
2002, pet. ref’d). Evidence can be legally sufficient to sustain a deadly weapon finding if
the evidence demonstrates that: (1) the object meets the statutory definition of a deadly
weapon; (2) the deadly weapon was used or exhibited during the transaction from which
the felony conviction was obtained; and (3) other people were put in actual danger.
Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
By statute, a deadly weapon means: (A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed,
made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or (B) anything
that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily
injury. TEX . PEN . CODE ANN . § 1.07(a)(17) (Vernon Supp. 2006). 1 To establish the use of
a deadly weapon, the State is not required to prove the weapon used actually caused
1
Further references to a section of the Penal Code will be by reference to “§ _.”
3
death or serious bodily injury but that it was capable of causing death or serious bodily
injury. See Brooks v. State, 900 S.W.2d 468, 472 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1995, no pet.).
We will now review the evidence in light of the three factors in Drichas. The school
nurse testified that a belt, used in a manner such as in the present case, has the potential
to cause injuries to internal organs if a person is hit in the lower back area, specifically
kidney damage. Thus evidence was presented that the belt met the statutory definition of
a deadly weapon. As to the second factor, appellant contends that no evidence was
presented to the jury to demonstrate that the belt was used as a deadly weapon during the
transaction from which the conviction was obtained because each witness stated that the
belt could cause death or serious bodily injury if the belt was used with enough force. Even
with such a qualification, the witnesses testified that the belt was capable of causing
serious bodily injury. Further, the jury observed the photos and heard the witnesses’
testimony describing the extent, severity, and location of the bruises. Therefore, the jury
has sufficient information to determine that the belt was used “during the transaction” as
a deadly weapon. See Brooks, 900 S.W.2d at 472 (jury’s duty is to reconcile evidentiary
conflicts and its decision will be upheld if supported by credible evidence). Finally, the
nurse testified that, in her opinion, appellant used the belt with sufficient force to cause
severe bruising and had the potential to cause injuries to internal organs. The nurse
concluded that a belt used in this manner could kill a person if the person were hit hard
enough. Therefore, we conclude that the jury had sufficient evidence to make the
determination that T.D. was put in actual danger. Viewing all the evidence in light most
favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a
4
reasonable doubt that the belt was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury and
thus could be considered a deadly weapon. We further conclude that the jury had
evidence that it could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or
exhibited the belt as a deadly weapon. Therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient to
support an affirmative deadly weapon finding.
When reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting a deadly weapon
finding, we review all the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the affirmative
finding of a deadly weapon is so weak as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. See
Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 593-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (manifestly unjust standard
applies when complaining party did not have burden of proof at trial).
In addition to the school nurse’s testimony noted above, three teachers and the
school counselor testified to personally observing the extent of the bruising as well as the
location of the bruising. Additionally, several photographs of the bruising were admitted
and available for the jury to review in making their determination. Considering all of the
evidence in a neutral light, we cannot conclude that the evidence was so weak that the
jury’s affirmative finding as to the deadly weapon issue was clearly wrong or manifestly
unjust. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the
jury’s affirmative deadly weapon finding. We overrule appellant’s issue and will next
consider the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have
5
found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); Ross v. State, 133
S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The jury is the sole judge of the weight and
credibility of the evidence. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.
When an appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction, the reviewing court must determine whether, considering all the evidence in a
neutral light, the jury was rationally justified in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Watson v. State, 2006 WL 2956272, at *8 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 18, 2006). In
performing a factual sufficiency review, we are to give deference to the fact finder’s
determinations and not seek to order a new trial simply because we may disagree with the
verdict. See id. As an appellate court, we are not justified in ordering a new trial unless
there is some objective basis in the record demonstrating that the great weight and
preponderance of the evidence contradicts the jury’s verdict. See id. at *10. An opinion
addressing factual sufficiency must include a discussion of the most important and relevant
evidence that appellant claims undermines the jury’s verdict. Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d
600, 603 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003).
As to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction, appellant’s sole
contention is that the State failed to negate appellant’s justification defense that his use of
force was disciplinary. § 9.61(a). Specifically, appellant contends that the State failed to
show that (1) the force used by appellant, acting in loco parentis, to discipline T.D. was not
reasonable and necessary; or (2) appellant could not have reasonably believed the force
was reasonable and necessary to discipline T.D. However, the justification provision raised
6
by appellant does not allow the use of deadly force. See § 9.61 (a). "Deadly force" means
force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or
intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. § 9.01. Hence, if the
State’s evidence proves that the force, in the manner of its use or intended use, was
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, then the justification defense raised by
appellant is inapplicable.
We note that the definitions for deadly force and deadly weapon contain similar
language. Compare § 1.07(a)(17)(B) and § 9.01. As previously discussed in our analysis
of the jury’s affirmative deadly weapon finding, the evidence was legally and factually
sufficient to support a finding that the belt, as used or as it was intended to be used, was
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Therefore, the jury’s affirmative deadly
weapon finding can arise only if the jury also concluded that the belt, in the manner of its
use or intended use, is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Having
concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s affirmative deadly weapon
finding, appellant cannot claim justification under section 9.61 for his actions because
deadly force was used.
However, even if the defense of justification was available to appellant, the State
was not required to specifically negate appellant’s defense. The State is required to
present evidence sufficient to convince a jury that appellant committed each element of the
offense presented. See Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991)
(State does not have burden of production but rather a burden of persuasion in disproving
a defense). A verdict of guilty is an implicit rejection of appellant’s defensive argument.
7
See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594. Therefore, assuming arguendo that appellant legitimately
raised the justification defense that the belt’s use was for disciplinary purposes, the jury’s
verdict demonstrates that the jury rejected appellant’s claim of justification. Viewing the
evidence discussed above in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, we may not order a new trial unless there is some objective basis in
the record demonstrating that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence
contradicts the jury’s verdict. Considering the extent of bruising described by the
witnesses, appellant’s admission of the use of the belt on T.D. and the photographs
admitted into evidence, we cannot conclude that the great weight and preponderance of
the evidence contradicts the jury’s verdict. See Watson, 2006 WL 2956272, at *10. We
conclude that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict. We overrule appellant’s issues of legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence
to support the convictions.
Having overruled appellant’s issues, we affirm.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
8