Ritchie Lawson v. State ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00380-CR
RITCHIE LAWSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 364th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-434,666, Honorable Blair Cherry, Presiding
September 5, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Ritchie Lawson appeals his conviction for sexual assault. On appeal,
he questions the sufficiency of the evidence underlying that conviction. We affirm the
judgment.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard
discussed in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). No further
explanation of the standard is necessary.
As mentioned in appellant's brief, the complainant testified that appellant had sex
with her without her consent. Because the testimony of the complainant alone, if
believed, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, Franco v. State, 339 S.W.3d 793, 794
(Tex. App.–Amarillo 2011, no pet.), there appears of record some evidence upon which
rational jurors could conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant committed the
crime for which he was convicted. Nonetheless, appellant believes that the
complainant's testimony was not credible, that it was contradicted by other evidence,
and, therefore, it cannot support the conviction.
It is true that appellant denied engaging in sex with the complainant and that
evidence appears of record indicating that the complainant engaged in what some could
categorize as erratic or odd behavior. Yet, other evidence illustrated the presence of
appellant's semen/DNA in her vagina. Taken as a whole, the circumstances before the
jury simply triggered its duty to resolve credibility issues and decide who and what to
believe. Again, that is the function of a jury, and we defer to the manner in which it
resolved those issues. Franco v. State, 339 S.W.3d at 794 (stating that any
inconsistencies in the evidence were for the jury to resolve, as were issues regarding
the credibility of the complainant, and we defer to the jury's determination of those
issues).
Appellant’s sole issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2