Jessica Ruiz Espinoza v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 7, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01213-CR
JESSICA RUIZ ESPINOZA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 005-83192-2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Jessica Ruiz Espinoza waived a jury and pled not guilty before the trial court to assault
causing bodily injury. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at one
day’s confinement in the county jail, probated for thirty days, and a $75 fine. In a single issue,
appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED
Aragon
Autumn Aragon testified that she and appellant were roommates from July 2012 until
November 28, 2012, when Aragon moved out. Susan Shorkey (the complainant), Lauren Dudek,
and Mitchell Hinton helped Aragon move her belongings from appellant’s apartment.
Aragon and her friends arrived at the apartment and started moving her things out
sometime in the late morning. When they arrived, appellant and three individuals, identified, as
“Hira, Jason, and Rashad,” were sitting on the couch in the living room. Appellant walked back
and forth between the couch and her own bedroom during the time Aragon’s friends moved
items from Aragon’s bedroom.
After almost two hours of going in and out of the apartment, Aragon heard the door shut
“with a slam noise” as she put items in a rental truck outside. Aragon heard Shorkey say “Let us
inside,” and heard banging on the door. When she looked up the stairs toward the apartment
door, Aragon saw appellant grab Shorkey’s hair and yell at her to “get out.” Both appellant and
Shorkey were yelling and cursing at one another. Appellant grabbed Shorkey’s hair and pushed
her to the ground. Aragon saw “punches being thrown.” Aragon saw appellant’s brother Jason
hit Shorkey on the face and neck, and saw “kicks to the stomach.”
Aragon ran up the stairs and told appellant and Jason to stop. Hinton also ran up the
stairs and tried to get Jason away from Shorkey. Dudek called the police on her cell phone.
Shorkey eventually was able to get up and move down the stairs, but “appellant, Hira, Jason, and
Rashad” followed and blocked them from going back to the apartment.
‐2‐
Shorkey
Susan Shorkey testified that when she, Dudek and Hinton went to help Aragon move out
of the apartment, Shorkey put her “things” in Aragon’s bedroom closet, then began moving
Aragon’s belongings to a rental truck. Appellant and three people were sitting on the living
room couch watching television when Aragon used her key to open the front door.
After moving things out for about ninety minutes, Shorkey heard the apartment door shut
behind her. She knocked on the door and said she needed to get her “stuff” from the bedroom.
When no one opened the door, Shorkey began banging on it. Appellant then yelled for her to get
off her property. Shorkey yelled back that they had already been in and out and “why is she
starting drama now.” Shorkey and appellant yelled and cursed at each other through the closed
door. After a short time, appellant opened the door.
Shorkey stepped through the doorway, intending to go to Aragon’s bedroom. Appellant
pushed Shorkey, and Shorkey pushed appellant. Appellant grabbed Shorkey’s hair, hit her on
the face and neck, and pulled Shorkey to the ground. Appellant continued hitting Shorkey on the
face, head, and neck.
Shorkey crawled outside the apartment; appellant followed her and continued the assault.
Appellant kicked Shorkey on her left side and on the back of Shorkey’s head. Shorkey tried to
fight back. She heard Aragon telling appellant to stop. The fight lasted about ten minutes.
When the kicking stopped, Shorkey sat on the stairs to catch her breath. Appellant “threw one
last punch,” hitting Shorkey in the face. After that, Shorkey went down the stairs and waited for
the police. Shorkey testified she felt pain on her head, neck, and the left side of her stomach.
Photographs taken by the police at the scene were admitted without objection and show
scratches on Shorkey’s neck and behind her ear, torn clothing, and a clump of hair pulled from
‐3‐
Shorkey’s head. Medical records of Shorkey’s emergency room treatment on November 28,
2012 were admitted without objection.
Puckett
Plano police officer Jeremy Puckett testified that he answered a disturbance call at
appellant’s apartment around 11:15 a.m. on November 28, 2012. He first interviewed four
people who were sitting on the back end of a rental truck, including Susan Shorkey, Autumn
Aragon, Lauren Dudek, and Mitchell Hinton. Shorkey had visible marks on her neck, her hair
was coming out, and her pants were torn. When a second officer arrived at the scene, Puckett
went to appellant’s apartment and questioned four individuals, including appellant, appellant’s
brother Jason, Hira, and Rashad. The two groups of people told the same story as to why the
group at the rental truck were at the apartment. The differences in their stories regarded entry
into the apartment. The group at the truck said they had been in and out moving items, and at
some point they were locked out. When appellant finally opened the door, she and “her people”
came out of the apartment toward Shorkey. Appellant told the officer she had been sleeping and
awoke when she heard unfamiliar voices. Appellant locked the door. When she opened the door
a short time later, the others “kind of barged their way in.” Puckett testified he saw a cut on
appellant’s hand.
Espinoza
Jason Espinoza, appellant’s brother, testified that he watched Aragon and her friends
move items out of the apartment. At some point, appellant locked the front door. Shorkey
banged on the door and when appellant “peeked out,” Shorkey and two others rushed in. Aragon
was not there. Shorkey made the first contact with appellant. When Shorkey and appellant
began fighting, Espinoza stepped in to “keep the other male from choking my sister.” “The
‐4‐
skinny girl was pulling hair too,” as were both Shorkey and appellant. The three people who
were helping Aragon move out were the aggressors.
Appellant
Appellant testified she was asleep in her room when she was awakened by voices she did
not recognize. When appellant got up and looked into the living room, she saw Shorkey walking
out of the apartment. Appellant testified Shorkey made a derogatory remark so she locked the
door after her. When Shorkey returned and started banging on the door, appellant opened it
because the banging was “shaking the walls and [she] didn’t want the cops to be called.” When
she opened the door, Shorkey “flew in on me.” Shorkey was the aggressor, came into the
apartment first, and was followed in by another woman and a man. All three pushed and hit
appellant, pulled her hair, and the man choked her. Appellant hit them back only because she
was defending herself. Appellant denied hitting Shorkey again outside on the steps.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient because the trial judge erred in
rejecting her self-defense claim. Appellant asserts that she was justified in using self-defense
because she was protecting herself in her own residence. The State responds that the evidence is
legally sufficient to support the conviction.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the fact finding and determine whether a rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
We are required to defer to the fact finder’s credibility and weight determinations because the
‐5‐
fact finder is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their
testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim of self-
defense. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Once the defendant does
so, the State then bears the burden of persuasion to disprove the raised defense. Id. The burden
of persuasion does not require the State to produce evidence; it requires only that the State prove
its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A determination of guilt by the fact finder implies a
finding against the defensive theory. Id.
The issue of self-defense is a fact issue to be determined by the fact finder, who is free to
accept or reject the defensive issue. See Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913–14 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). As the sole judge of the weight and credibility accorded any witness’s testimony,
the fact finder is free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of all witnesses, and to accept or
reject any or all of the evidence produced by the respective parties. See Cleveland v. State, 177
S.W.3d 374, 380(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
To obtain a conviction for assault, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Susan Shorkey by
striking Shorkey’s head, face, or body or by pulling Shorkey’s hair with defendant’s hand. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014). “Bodily injury” means physical pain,
illness, or any impairment of physical condition. Id.
Appellant does not challenge the fact that Shorkey sustained bodily injuries due to an
assault. Rather, she claims the evidence shows that she was justified in using force—hitting
Shorkey—to prevent Shorkey from using force against her while she was in her residence. But
there was conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Aragon and Shorkey testified that
‐6‐
appellant was the aggressor. Appellant and Espinoza testified that Shorkey was the aggressor,
and that appellant only acted in self-defense.
It was the role of the trial court, as fact-finder, to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.
See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913–14. The trial court could have reasonably concluded the
evidence did not support appellant’s self-defense claim. See Cleveland, 177 S.W.3d at 380.
Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could reject
appellant’s claim of self-defense and find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant assaulted
Shorkey. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. We overrule appellant’s sole
issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
141213F.U05
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
‐7‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSICA RUIZ ESPINOZA, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law No.
5 of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 005-
No. 05-14-01213-CR V. 83192-2013).
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 7, 2015.
‐8‐