In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-16-00147-CR
________________________
IVAN DEJESUS AGUILAR, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 1
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1441955; Honorable Sherry L. Hill, Presiding
November 1, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Ivan Dejesus Aguilar, was convicted by a jury of the offense of
assault1 and was sentenced by the court to confinement in the Tarrant County Jail for a
term of six days and assessed a fine of $100. By a single issue, Appellant contends the
evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2016). As charged, the offense was a
Class A misdemeanor. Id. at § 22.01(b) (West Supp. 2016).
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2015, Appellant was involved in an altercation involving several
persons. During the course of that altercation, Maria Olivares was hit in the mouth,
causing the loss of a front tooth. As a result of that incident, Appellant was charged by
information with the offense of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. In pertinent part, the
information alleged as follows:
[t]hat Ivan Dejesus Aguilar, hereinafter called Defendant, In the County of
Tarrant and State aforesaid, on or about the 18th day of October 2015, did
then and there intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to Maria
Olivares, by striking her with his hand.
At trial, the State called four fact witnesses: Maria Olivares, Norma Arevalo, Sara
Lozano, and Selena Lozano. Olivares testified that she did not know with what she was
struck. Arevalo testified that she saw Appellant with “something in his hand” and that
“[h]e swung at [Olivares], hit her in the mouth.” Sara and Selena both testified that they
did not see Appellant strike Olivares.
At the close of the State’s case, Appellant moved for a directed verdict of
acquittal. After that motion was denied, Appellant was called as the only witness for the
defense. During his testimony, he denied striking Olivares. The case was submitted to
the jury and they returned a verdict of guilty. At that time, the court assessed
Appellant’s sentence at six days confinement in the Tarrant County Jail, a fine of $100,
and costs of court. Appellant timely perfected this appeal. On appeal, Appellant
contends the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he intentionally or
knowingly caused bodily injury to Olivares by striking her with his hand.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The standards of review we must apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence in a criminal proceeding are so well established that a detailed recitation of
those standards is unnecessary here. We find it sufficient to refer the parties to
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979), and Brooks
v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), for a review of those standards.
We further note that we measure the sufficiency of the evidence according to “the
elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the
case.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). For the purpose of
that analysis, we note that the essential elements of the offense of assault are: (1) a
person, (2) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, (3) causes bodily injury, (4) to
another. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2016).
Here, Appellant advances the argument that there was no evidence introduced
by the State establishing that he struck Olivares in the mouth with his hand, as alleged
in the information. Specifically, he states that Arevalo’s testimony, the only testimony
directly establishing that he struck Olivares, was that he did not use his hand. This
conclusion is incorrect. What Arevalo testified to was that she saw Appellant with
“something in his hand” and that “[h]e swung at [Olivares], hit her in the mouth.”
Nothing about that testimony indicates that Appellant did not strike Olivares. It is
immaterial whether Appellant was holding something in his hand at the time. The
reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this direct testimony was that Appellant struck
Olivares in the mouth. Other evidence clearly established that Olivares suffered bodily
injury as a result of being struck. Accordingly, we find that, when viewed in the light
3
most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence was sufficient to establish each
element of the offense necessary to support Appellant’s conviction. Appellant’s sole
issue is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4