Danieun Leonard Stuart v. State ( 2013 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00054-CR
DANIEUN LEONARD STUART,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 82nd District Court
Falls County, Texas
Trial Court No. 9193
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Danieun Leonard Stuart of the offense of assault-family
violence. The jury found the enhancement paragraph to be true and assessed
punishment at 13 years confinement and a $5000 fine. We affirm.
In the sole issue on appeal, Stuart complains that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of
review of a sufficiency issue as follows:
In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support
a conviction, a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9,
13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This "familiar standard gives full play to the
responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony,
to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. "Each fact need not point
directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the
cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to
support the conviction." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), cert den’d , 132 S. Ct. 2712, 183
L. Ed. 2d 71 (2012).
The Court of Criminal Appeals has also explained that our review of "all of the
evidence" includes evidence that was properly and improperly admitted. Conner v.
State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). And if the record supports conflicting
inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the
prosecution and therefore defer to that determination. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
326, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Further, direct and circumstantial evidence
are treated equally: "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in
establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to
establish guilt." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Finally, it is
well established that the factfinder is entitled to judge the credibility of witnesses and
can choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties.
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Stuart v. State Page 2
Danieun Leonard Stuart and Cassandra Hopwood are the parents of a nineteen
year-old son. After many years apart, they again formed a relationship and were living
together. On the morning of September 20, 2012, Cassandra asked Stuart to go to the
store to buy some dishwashing liquid. Stuart did not return until approximately 8:00
p.m. that evening. Cassandra testified that when Stuart finally returned he had been
drinking, and they got into an argument. Cassandra tried to leave the apartment, and
Stuart grabbed her face and threw her on the bed. Stuart forcibly held Cassandra down
on the bed with his arm putting pressure on her neck. Cassandra stated that Stuart did
not want her to leave and call the police. Cassandra eventually got away from Stuart
and went to a nearby grocery store where she called her daughter. Cassandra then
called the police and later returned to the apartment.
Officer Eaglin, with the Marlin Police Department, responded to the call. He
testified that Cassandra told him her boyfriend assaulted her. Cassandra told Officer
Eaglin that Stuart smashed her in the face, slammed her on the bed, and started choking
her. Officer Eaglin stated that Cassandra’s right arm was red and that her face was
swollen. Officer Eaglin ran a check on Stuart and learned that he had three outstanding
warrants. Stuart returned to the scene and was arrested on the outstanding warrants.
At the police station, Stuart gave a statement in which he admitted pushing and
shoving Cassandra and also that he “grabbed her in a headlock.” Another Officer asked
Stuart if he choked Cassandra, and he replied that he did choke her. Stuart was then
arrested for assault-family violence. Officer Eaglin went to the hospital to talk to
Stuart v. State Page 3
Cassandra, and Cassandra stated that she did not want to prosecute Stuart over the
incident.
Chad Underwood, a paramedic, testified that he was dispatched to the scene in
response to the assault. Underwood said that Cassandra was complaining of weakness
in her right arm and pain in her right hand. Cassandra told Underwood that her
boyfriend “assaulted her and choked her out.” Cassandra was taken to the hospital
where she was examined by nurse practitioner Charlotte Widick. Widick stated that
Cassandra was frightened, tearful, and anxious. Cassandra said that she had been
choked, and she complained of numbness in her right arm. Widick stated that there
was visible bruising on Cassandra’s right shoulder indicating a forceful injury.
A person commits the offense of assault if he intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (a) (1) (West
Supp. 2013). Criminal offenses generally involve one of three conduct elements, and
those elements are: (1) the nature of the conduct; (2) the result of the conduct; and (3)
the circumstances surrounding the conduct. Johnson v. State, 271 S.W.3d 756, 760
(Tex.App. – Waco 2008, no pet.). Bodily injury assault is a result oriented offense.
Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). "Intentionally" means that
it is the defendant's conscious objective or desire to engage in conduct or cause the
result. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(a) (West 2011). A person acts "knowingly" with
respect to the result of his conduct if he is aware that his conduct is reasonably likely to
cause the result. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(b) (West 2011). "Recklessness" means
that the defendant is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
Stuart v. State Page 4
risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(c)
(West 2011).
Stuart specifically complains that the evidence is insufficient to show that he
intended to cause bodily injury to Cassandra. Cassandra testified that Stuart hurt her,
but that he “didn’t hurt me, I mean, intentionally.” When asked if Stuart assaulted her,
Cassandra replied, “I guess it was assault; because I couldn’t get off the bed and I got
injuries, and that’s assault. But as far as him - - or me thinking that he really meant to
hurt me [Prosecutor] I don’t really think that he meant to hurt me.”
The jury charge correctly instructed the jury to find Stuart guilty if he
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Cassandra. The evidence
shows that Stuart grabbed Cassandra’s face and threw her on the bed. Stuart forcefully
held Cassandra on the bed. Stuart told police that he put Cassandra in a headlock and
that he choked her. The evidence is sufficient to show that Stuart committed the offense
of assault family violence. We overrule the sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 5, 2013
Do not publish
[CR 25]
Stuart v. State Page 5