Aflirmed; Opinion Filed October 29, 2012.

In The 

## Qtuurt ofAppratz iftI! Thtrirt of ixaa at 

## atta No. 05-11-01490-CR DAVID LYNN ABRON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-7266-N 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang Opinion By Justice Lang David Lynn Abron appeals from his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to prove he used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense or that he threatened the complainant. We affirm the trial court’sjudgment. The background ofthe case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

### BAcKGRouND AND

### Evnwr4cEPRESENTED 

### Appellantwaivedajury andpleadednotguilty

### beforethe

### trial courtto 

### aggravated assault with a deadlyweapon, aknife. During the trial, BobbyJohnson testifiedhe was retired and did yard work for extra money. He kept lawn equipment in a shed in his back yard. On July 29, 2010, someonebroke into the shed and stole some ofhis equipment. Johnsonbelieved appellant
was the thief. To prevent anothertheft, Johnson put a chain and masterlock on the sheddoor. On July 30, 2010, Johnson awoke sometime between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to use the bathroom. He sawtwo womenstandingon the streetinfrontofhishouse. Johnsonwentouton the frontporch and “satlow in achair” thatwas hiddenby arosebush. He watched thewomen who were both talking on their cell phones. Suddenly, appellant walked from Johnson’s back yardtowardthe frontyard. Johnsontestifiedhebelievedthewomenwere lookouts forappellant and were talking to appellant on their phones. When Johnson confronted appellant by asking whyhe was coming from Johnson’s back

# — at that time in the 

### morning the women ran off Appellant said he was looking forhis dog. Johnsontestifiedhis house has a “bricked-up wall” thatgoes fromthe frontyardalongthe sideofthehousetothebackyard. Appellantdidnothave permission to be anywhere on Johnson’s property. Johnson’s grandsonMarkel came outside to see what was going on. When Markel walked toward appellant appellant pulled out a knife. Johnsontestifiedhesawaknifeinappellant’shand, andtheknifewas open. 

### Markel Johnson testified he heard his grandfather talking to 

### someone outside in 

### the middle ofthe night. When he went outside to 

### investigate Markel heard his grandfather ask appellant what was he doing coming from the back

# — at two o’clock in the morning. 

### Appellant said he was looking for his dog. Markel testified he walked toward appellant intending to “grab” him to await the 

### police. Appellantpulled out a knife and 

### said “getbadc” -2-Markel raised his hands and stepped away from appellant. Markel testified the knife was about 10 inches away” from him. Appellant held the knife low down by [appellant’sj waist.” Market described the knit as “about that long,” and said it was the kind that “you flip in and out but not a switchblade.” Markel testified he was “shocked” when appellant pulled out the knife. Markel felt threatened because he believed appellant would cut him with the kiife. The trial court found appellant guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to an agreement between appellant and the State during the punishment phase, the trial court assessed punishment at three years’ imprisonment. APPLIcABI.E LAw in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency ofthe evidence, we examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier offact could have found the essential elements ofthe offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Viiginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894—95 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 1); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (‘fex. Crirn. App. 2010) (plurality op.). We are required to defer to the fact finder’s credibility and weight determinations because the fact finder is the solejudge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326. The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally or knowingly threatened Markel Johnson with imminent bodily injury, and appellant used and exhibited a deadly weapon, a knife, during the commission ofthe assault. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

## § 22.0l(a)(2), 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). A deadly weapon means “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

## § l.07(a)(17)(B) (West 2011). Objects that are not usually considered -‘3-dangerous weapons may become so. depending on the manner in which they are used during the commission ofan offense. Thomas v. State. 821 S.W.2d 61 6, 620 (Tex. [rim. App. 1991). To prove a particular knife is a deadly weapon, the State may produce testimony regarding the size ofthe knife, the manner ofits use, and its capability to cause serious bodily injury or death. See B/am v. State, 647 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In addition, the fact finder may consider the words spoken by the appellant in making a deadly weapon finding. See id. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to prove he used or exhibited a deadly weapon because there was no evidence presented about the size, shape, or sharpness ofthe blade. Appellant asserts that because no threatening words were spoken, nor did he threaten the complainant with imminent bodily injury, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The State responds the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant used a deadly weapon during the commission ofthe assault. Johnson and Markel testified appellant pulled out a knife when Markel walked toward appellant. Markel testified the knife was only ten inches away from him, and he felt threatened when appellant pulled out the knife and ordered him to “get back.” Johnson saw the blade, and Markel gave a description of the approximate size of the knife. Markel also described how appellant held the knife. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant intended to threaten Markel with imminentbodily injury when he pulled out the knife. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him.

-4-We 

### affirm the trial 

### court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 II 1490F.U05

-5-

## Qtourt of

## ppea1 iftftj 

## ttrItt ofZ1Lxa at a11a JUDGMENT DAVID LYNN ABRON, Appellant Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-11-01490-CR V. F10-72686-N). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Bridges and Richterparticipating.

i3ased on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the trial court’sjudgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered October 29, 2012.

JUSTICE/ 

## /