DocketNumber： 10-07-00011-CR
Filed Date： 10/17/2007
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/10/2015
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00011-CR
Sammy Leos,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 278th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20727-C
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Sammy Leos, a prisoner, was convicted of Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant with a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Deadly Weapon in a Penal Institution. A jury determined his punishment as 25 years in prison and ten years in prison, respectively, to which he was sentenced by the trial court. Because the evidence is legally sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In two issues, Leos argues the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions because there was no evidence Leos intentionally or knowingly threatened Rowe with imminent bodily injury while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon and because there was no evidence the weapon was a deadly weapon. In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction under Jackson v. Virginia[1], we 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 juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Travis Rowe, a correctional officer at the Estelle Unit High Security, was feeding lunch to inmates at the unit. When told by Rowe to stand away from the food slot, Leos refused. As Rowe moved closer to the slot, Leos lunged and sliced at him with a weapon, threw a liquid at him, and then threw the weapon at him. The weapon was described as a rolled up magazine, approximately 13 inches long, with a comb in the end and two razor blades attached to the end of the comb. At the time of the trial, only one razor blade remained attached to the comb. Leos testified that he only threw his tea at Rowe and did not use any weapon against Rowe. Leos stated that the prisoner in the next cell threw a “pole” at Rowe as he had his back turned, but it was not the same “pole” as the weapon admitted into evidence.
To support his first issue, Leos argues that, by his own testimony, he did not stab at Rowe and that another inmate threw the weapon at Rowe. The jury was free to disbelieve Leos’ testimony. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After reviewing all the evidence under the appropriate standard, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault. Issue one is overruled.
Leos offers no explanation in support of his second issue as to why the evidence was legally insufficient to show the weapon used by Leos was a deadly weapon. 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. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(17) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Although three State’s witnesses testified that the weapon now had only one razor blade that did not protrude very far from the end of the comb, they all testified that the weapon was something manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. After reviewing all of the evidence under the appropriate standard, the evidence is legally sufficient to prove the weapon used was a deadly weapon. Issue two is overruled.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2007
Do not publish
[CRPM]