Opinion filed September 19, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-17-00257-CR

__________

RANDELL RAY BOWERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR24773

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Randell Ray Bowers of 

aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2019). Appellant 

pleaded “true” to two prior felonies alleged for enhancement purposes. The trial 

court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding and sentenced Appellant to 

confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 
2

Criminal Justice.

1 In a single issue, Appellant contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the finding that he used or exhibited a firearm during the 

assault. We affirm. 

Background Facts

On July 3, 2016, Appellant and Tabitha Porter, Appellant’s girlfriend, went to 

sleep at Porter’s apartment. Subsequently, Appellant woke Porter. Appellant was 

holding Porter’s cell phone and confronted her about her status as “single” on social 

media. Porter told Appellant that she did not know how to change her status. Porter

testified that she tried to change her status but that, when she was unable to do so, 

Appellant struck her on the back of the head three times with a closed fist. Appellant 

then went to the bathroom, and when he returned, instructed Porter to sit up. Porter 

testified that Appellant was holding her cell phone and that she could see a gun in 

his hand from the light on the cell phone. The lights were not on in the apartment.

Appellant approached Porter and pointed the weapon at her “private area” and stated:

“I can put a pillow over it and shoot you and walk out, and nobody would know.”

Appellant then threw Porter against a wall twice. Porter testified that she ran to her 

neighbor’s apartment and called 9-1-1. 

Catherine Brooks, Porter’s neighbor, testified that, after Porter ran into 

Brook’s apartment, Brooks talked to Appellant outside. While Brooks waited for 

the police to arrive, Appellant went back into Porter’s apartment. Brooks testified 

that she heard a thud in the attic shared by both apartments. When the police arrived,

they were not able to locate the gun. Brownwood Police Officer Paul Chrisman 

testified that he looked for the gun in the attic but that he was not able to physically 

 1

The record reflects that Appellant had seven prior felony convictions, as well as several prior 

misdemeanor convictions. Many of the prior convictions involved assaults or weapons. Additionally, 

Appellant was also convicted in the same bench trial of three counts of forgery. The trial court also 

sentenced Appellant to confinement for life for the three forgery convictions. 
3

get into the attic because the opening was too small. He could not see the entire attic 

with his flashlight. However, he testified that it was possible that there was a gun in 

the attic. 

Analysis

Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding 

that he used or exhibited a firearm during the assault. He directs his contention to 

the fact that the police were unable to locate a firearm after conducting a thorough 

search of Porter’s apartment and the surrounding area. 

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard 

of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 

S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Under the Jackson standard, we review 

all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether 

any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When conducting a sufficiency review, we consider all the 

evidence admitted at trial, including pieces of evidence that may have been 

improperly admitted. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2013); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to 

the factfinder’s role as the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight 

their testimony is to be afforded. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. This standard accounts 

for the factfinder’s duty 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; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. When the record supports conflicting 

inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the 

verdict and defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Clayton, 235 

S.W.3d at 778.
4

A person commits the offense of assault if that person intentionally, 

knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person. 

PENAL § 22.01(a)(1). As relevant to this case, the offense becomes aggravated 

assault if that person uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the 

assault. Id. § 22.02(a)(2). A deadly weapon is exhibited when it is consciously 

shown, displayed, or presented for view. Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 941

(Tex. Crim. App. 1989). 

Although the police never found the gun, the trial court concluded on the 

record that Porter’s testimony was credible. See Gomez v. State, 685 S.W.2d 333, 

336 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (holding evidence legally sufficient to prove use of 

firearm, without recovery of weapon, based solely on complainant’s description). 

Porter testified that, during the assault, she could see a gun in Appellant’s hand from 

the light on her cell phone. She further testified that she saw Appellant point the gun 

at her “private area” and heard him state: “I can put a pillow over it and shoot you 

and walk out, and nobody would know.” Additionally, Brooks testified that, after 

Appellant went back inside the apartment, she heard a thud in the shared attic while 

waiting for the police to arrive. Officer Chrisman testified that he was unable to 

physically enter the attic but that it was possible that there was a gun in the attic.

Based upon Porter’s testimony, a rational trier of fact could have found 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant used or exhibited a firearm during the 

assault. See PENAL § 1.07(a)(17)(A) (West Supp. 2018); Ex parte Huskins, 176 

S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (stating that a firearm is a deadly weapon 

per se). The fact that the officers could not find the firearm is an inference that 

conflicts with Porter’s testimony. Under the applicable standard of review, we defer 

to the factfinder’s resolution of conflicting inferences. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; 

Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was sufficient 
5

to support Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We 

overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

JOHN M. BAILEY 

CHIEF JUSTICE

September 19, 2019

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

 2

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.