Sharon Delaney v. State ( 2003 )

Opinion issued November 26, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-03-00343-CR

---

SHARON DELANEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1146813

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          The trial court found appellant guilty of failure to stop and give information and sentenced her to 30 days’ confinement and a $1,000 fine. We affirm.

Background

          Lee Preston arrived at a Wal-Mart store at 6:00 a.m. to shop. He saw a blue truck pull in front of appellant and take a parking space. He then watched appellant circle the lot several times for a parking space. In the meantime, Mr. Preston parked and exited his car. He saw appellant hit the blue truck, back up, hit the truck again, and resume circling the parking lot.

          A few minutes later, Officer Ben Murray arrived at the Wal-Mart after receiving a general broadcast about this incident. He saw appellant driving a car that matched the car described in the broadcast. Officer Murray stopped appellant and noticed some scratches and dents on the front of her car. According to the officer, appellant stated that the damage to her car was old.

          Witnesses in the Wal-Mart parking lot identified appellant’s car as the one that had hit the truck. Mr. Preston informed the officer that he saw appellant driving the car in the collision. Officer Murray examined the truck and found a lens cover and a light bulb from appellant’s car lying on the ground below the truck. He also found a paint chip matching appellant’s car on the truck’s side molding. Officer Murray testified that the accident probably occurred at about 6:00 or 6:10 a.m.

          Appellant denied being in an accident. Appellant, her friend, her sister, and her son-in-law testified that appellant entered the Wal-Mart at about 5:15 and remained inside shopping until at least 6:00 a.m. Appellant testified that when she emerged from the store, her car was in a different place than where she originally parked it. She did not know who moved the car, claiming that it was “mysteriously driven and in an accident.” She told the officer that her son owned the car and that he should be arrested. She also denied telling the officer that the damage to her car was old.

Legal and Factual Sufficiency

          In her first and second points of error, appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction.

          In evaluating legal and factual sufficiency, we follow the usual standards of review. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (legal sufficiency); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factual sufficiency).

          In her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant does not allege that the State did not prove any particular element of the offense. Instead, she argues that the State’s evidence was not credible. Mr. Preston testified that he observed appellant commit the offense; however, appellant argues that Mr. Preston was not credible in light of defense witnesses’ testimony that appellant was shopping at the time. Appellant offered no evidence indicating that Mr. Preston was not credible.

          The trier of fact is the sole judge of witness credibility and is free to believe or disbelieve any witness. Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The trier of fact was entitled to believe Mr. Preston’s testimony describing appellant’s commission of the offense and reject any contradictory testimony from the defense witnesses. Moreover, Officer Murray found a lens cover and a light bulb from appellant’s car lying on the ground below the truck. He also found a paint chip matching appellant’s car on the truck’s side molding.

          Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient. Despite the conflicting testimony, we do not find the verdict so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust; therefore, we hold that the evidence is factually sufficient.

          We overrule the first and second points of error.

Conclusion

          The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                             Justice Adele Hedges

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Nuchia, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).