Daunevyn Lynn Snowdy v. State ( 2019 )

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 19, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00643-CR
DAUNEVYN LYNN SNOWDY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 068917
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Daunevyn Lynn Snowdy appeals from his convictions and thirty year sentence for five
counts of aggravated assault against a public servant brought in a single indictment. Snowdy
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support that the sharpened plastic spoon he
brandished at jail officials was a deadly weapon. We affirm the trial court’s judgment, and because
the issues are well-settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the record for legal sufficiency, we consider the combined and cumulative
force of all admitted evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to
the verdict to determine whether a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Johnson v. State, 509 S.W.3d 320, 322
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
The State had to prove Snowdy intentionally or knowingly threatened the jailers with
imminent bodily injury and that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of
the assault. TEX. PEN. CODE § 22.01(a)(2); 22.02(a)(2). A deadly weapon is “anything manifestly
designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or anything
that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.”
TEX. PEN. CODE § 1.07(a)(17).
In determining whether an object is capable of causing serious bodily injury under section
1.07(a)(17)(B), we consider words and other threatening actions by the defendant, including the
defendant’s proximity to the victim; the weapon’s ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death,
including the size, shape, and sharpness of the weapon; and the manner in which the defendant
used the weapon. See Johnson v. State, 509 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (collecting
cases discussing factors). In Johnson, the deadly weapon was a standard butter knife used or
exhibited during a convenience store robbery. Because of the defendant’s proximity to victims,
his threats to harm, and victim testimony that the knife was capable of causing serious bodily
injury, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the jury could have reasonably inferred it was
capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Id. at 324.
ANALYSIS
The State introduced the spoon and pictures of it at trial. Witnesses testified that Snowdy
brandished the spoon while threatening the jailers with imminent bodily injury and continued to
do so as they entered his cell due to his refusal to peacefully hand them his shank.1 He said he
would kill the first person to come in his cell. No witness could say whether Snowdy sharpened
1
The State introduced a small, sharpened metal piece found on the ground right near Snowdy’s cell door after the
melee. No witness saw this small metal piece before it was found on the ground and no one ever said Snowdy
brandished it or even mentioned it. Thus, in reaching our conclusion, we do not consider the small metal piece because
there was insufficient evidence that Snowdy used or exhibited it. See TEX. PEN. CODE § 22.02(a)(2).
–2–
the spoon’s handle, but our law does not require proof that the defendant himself crafted the shank.
There is a video of parts of this incident showing jailers enter Snowdy’s cell and the aftermath as
they work to confine him in a “restraining chair.” Corporal Terry Robbs testified the spoon could
have gone through one’s neck, temple, or between ribs, if dispatched with enough force, any of
which could have caused serious bodily injury. See TEX. PEN. CODE 1.07(a)(46). There was no
contradicting evidence, and no meaningful cross-examination undermining Robbs’ statement.
Corporal Robbs’ testimony established several ways the sharpened spoon was capable of
causing what we recognize as serious bodily injury. See TEX. PEN. CODE 1.07(a)(46). It was not
clear that each of the five jailers Snowdy was charged with assaulting heard his threat, but this is
no impediment to a conviction of assault by threat when there is some evidence of a threat being
made. See Olivas v. State, 203 S.W.3d 341, 346-47, 349-51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The jailers
perceived the threat Snowdy presented.
In the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude this is sufficient to show the shank
was capable of causing at least serious bodily injury in the manner Snowdy used or intended to
use it and thus is sufficient to support characterizing it as a deadly weapon. See Johnson, 509
S.W.3d at 323-24; Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19; TEX. PEN. CODE § 1.07(a)(17)(B).2
2
And we could conclude there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’s implicit conclusion that the sharpened
spoon was adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury, qualifying as a deadly weapon pursuant to section
1.07(a)(17)(A). See Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 620-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc) (describing shanks
as “knife-like objects” qualifying as deadly weapons under 1.07(a)(17)(A)); Jimenez v. State, No. 08-17-00124-CR,
2019 WL 2022092, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 8, 2019, no pet.). Courts have looked to section 1.07(a)(17)(A)
and (B) to analyze jail-fashioned shanks as deadly weapons. See Iglesias v. State, 564 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 2018, no pet.); Shugart v. State, 32 S.W.3d 355, 360 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d); Romero v. State,
331 S.W.3d 82, 83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (citing both 1.07(a)(17)(A) and (B) but only
analyzing shank under (B)); Smith v. State, 51 S.W.3d 806, 809 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (analyzing
shank only under section 1.07(a)(17)(B) and finding it to be a deadly weapon, but not discussing the absence of a
subpart (A) discussion).
–3–
We overrule appellant’s sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
180643F.U05
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAUNEVYN LYNN SNOWDY, On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District
Appellant Court, Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 068917.
No. 05-18-00643-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg.
Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 19th day of August, 2019.
–5–