James Moreno v. State ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                     NO. 07-06-0167-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL C
    NOVEMBER 10, 2006
    ______________________________
    JAMES MORENO,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    _________________________________
    FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
    NO. 2005-493,404; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING
    _______________________________
    Memorandum Opinion
    _______________________________
    Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
    James Moreno (appellant) was convicted of the offense of assault-domestic
    violence. Appellant argues in two issues that the conviction is in error because 1) the
    evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain the conviction, and 2) the trial court
    erred in failing to grant him probation. We affirm the judgment.
    Sufficiency of the Evidence
    The standards by which we review legal and factual sufficiency challenges are set
    forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 
    99 S. Ct. 2781
    , 
    61 L. Ed. 2d 560
    (1979) and
    Watson v. State, No. PD-469-05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2040 (Tex. Crim. App.
    October 18, 2006). We refer the parties to those cases.
    To prove assault-domestic violence, the State must prove the accused intentionally,
    knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to another, including his spouse. TEX . PEN .
    CODE ANN . §22.01(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). In this case, the State alleged that appellant
    did so by throwing his wife Misty Moreno with his hand or by causing her to strike the floor.
    This incident allegedly occurred on February 16, 2005, when Misty took her
    daughter to the Extended Stay America hotel in Lubbock to see appellant. At that time, a
    quarrel ensued between appellant and his wife over a woman he was seeing. Misty
    testified that, during this quarrel, appellant knocked her down approximately eight to ten
    times with his hands. She attempted to call the police from a telephone in a break room
    for motel employees but he jerked the phone out of her hand. Misty stated that it hurt
    when she was thrown down and she had bruises on her arms and legs from the incident.
    Photographs were also made by a police officer approximately a week later of bruises on
    Misty’s arms and legs. Officer Gonzales testified that he believed at least some of the
    bruises were perhaps a week old. Additionally, Misty’s daughter testified that her father
    pushed her mother to the floor at the hotel. This evidence is enough to permit a rational
    trier of fact to find that appellant knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused bodily injury
    to Misty.
    Appellant argues that the evidence at trial was less than “definitive.” It is true that
    there is only the testimony of Misty and her daughter that appellant pushed her to the
    ground and caused her bruises. Admittedly, there is also testimony from a housekeeper
    at the hotel that while she did see Misty yelling and looking mad in the employee break
    2
    room and trying to call the police, the housekeeper never saw appellant with her. The
    police officer was also unable to specifically state when Misty received her bruises.
    Nevertheless, it was for the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to
    be given their testimony. Cain v. State, 
    958 S.W.2d 404
    , 408-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
    We cannot say that the finding of guilt by the jury is against the great weight and
    preponderance of the evidence, and we overrule the issue.
    Denial of Probation
    Appellant also challenges the trial court’s refusal to place him on probation by
    contending he was denied probation on the basis of “economic hardship.” Whether to
    grant probation is wholly discretionary with the trial court and not reviewable. Speth v.
    State, 
    6 S.W.3d 530
    , 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Yet, even if the trial court’s decision was
    reviewable, appellant cites us to no evidence in the record showing that the trial court
    denied appellant probation because of his economic status, contrary to the requirements
    of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h). Thus, we overrule the issue.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Brian Quinn
    Chief Justice
    Do not publish.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-06-00167-CR

Filed Date: 11/10/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/7/2015