Daniel Perez v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-09-0364-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JULY 22, 2010
DANIEL FELIPE PEREZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 222nd DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;
NO. CR-08H-141; HONORABLE ROLAND D. SAUL, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Daniel Felipe Perez challenges his conviction of capital murder by contending the
evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support it. We disagree and affirm the
conviction.
The standards by which we determine the sufficiency of the evidence are discussed in Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) and Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006), to which we refer the parties for explanation. Appellant was convicted of
knowingly causing the death of his girlfriend’s seventeen-month-old daughter by striking her head.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §19.03(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Appellant contends the evidence does not
show that he knowingly killed the child. A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of his
conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Id. §6.03(b)
(Vernon 2003).
Proof of intent usually depends on circumstantial evidence and may be determined from the
acts, words, and conduct of the accused. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995). Intent may also be inferred from the extent of the injuries, the method used to inflict the
injuries, and the relative size and strength of the parties. Id.; Martin v. State, 246 S.W.3d 246,
263 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
The record before us contains the following evidence: 1) appellant was caring for the child
while her mother was at work and was the only adult in the residence, 2) the child had apparently
thrown up and was whining and crying, 3) appellant claimed in a written statement that he stood her
on the dresser while attempting to put on her nightshirt, jerked down on the shirt, and caused her
to fall and slam her head on the corner of the dresser, 4) appellant stated the child was not
breathing but he did not call for help or take the child to the hospital, 5) appellant laid the
child on her side in her crib with her back to the room, re-arranged the furniture in the bedroom,
took his own children to his mother’s house, and gave a credit card to his son so the boy could
obtain cash, 6) appellant told the child’s mother nothing about the incident when she came home from
work although he appeared upset to the mother, 7) the next morning when the child’s mother
discovered the child was dead, appellant attempted to slash his wrists, 8) appellant told
inconsistent stories to police and later to the child’s mother as to how the incident happened, 9)
the child sustained two skull fractures to her head, one on the right side and one on the back, 10)
the cause of death was blunt force trauma which required a relative concentration of force, 11)
there was a significant injury to the back of the skull which is the area that controls respiration
and heartbeat, 12) retinal hemorrhages indicate a shaking component to the injury and they are not
usually caused by accidental injury, 13) one fall could not have caused all of the child’s injuries,
14) there were indications that the head was banged into some object several times, and 15)
appellant stated that he knew he had killed the child, that he was sorry, that he did not mean to do
it, and that he “screwed up.” This evidence, if believed by the jury, was sufficient for it to
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew that his actions were reasonably certain to
cause death. See Duren v. State, 87 S.W.3d 719, 726 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (the extent
of the injuries and the force necessary to inflict them, the conclusion they could not have occurred
by a trivial fall at home, the defendant’s inconsistent stories, and the disparity in strength and
size between the victim and the accused supported the inference that he knew his conduct was
reasonably certain to cause death).
Conversely, there was no evidence of any previous abuse of the victim by appellant, and
appellant’s expert witness testified that the child’s injuries were consistent with a fall and the
story appellant gave in his written statement to police. The expert also criticized the autopsy
that had been peformed. Yet, the jury was free to reject or discredit this evidence and to resolve
any conflicts it created. Moreover, that resolution is not so against the weight of the evidence as
to undermine our confidence in the verdict.
Accordingly, appellant’s issues are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.