i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 22 0- CR J ose He chava

rria VA LD EZ , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 144th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-9978 Honora ble Catherine T orre s-Stahl, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Concurringopinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Jus tice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: April 7, 2010 AFF I RMED A jury found appe llant J ose He chava rria V aldez g uilty

of burg lary

of a ha bit at i on and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant asser ts the evidence is leg ally

and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the jur y ’s ve rd ic t. We a ff

ir m.04

- 09

- 00 22 0- CR

- 2- F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Appellant had a

relations h i p wi t h a woman na med Sandra

Dukes. On Aug ust 19, 2006—sever al months a fter appellant’ s relationship with Sandra had ende d—Sandra a nd the man she wa s t h en d at i n g, Ronald Oakman, r eturne d to Sandra’s home afte r havingg one to dinner. Sandra’ s front entra

nce w as equippe d with a burg lar ba r door, whic h locks with a key from either side and w hich Sandra

locked be hind her a

nd Ronald on their way

in. Once inside, she g ather ed some clothes so she c ould s t ay t he we ekend at Ronald’s. When she was re ady to leave, Sandr a opened he r front door and unlocked the burg lar bar door. She then saw a ppellant throug h the bar s
an d i m m ed i at el y

t ri edt o cl o s e th e do o r. Ap p el l an t , h o we v er , s t ab b edh er t wi ce i nt h e a rm t h ro u gh the ba rs and fo rc e d his wa

y int o the ho us e . On c e ins ide , h e pu sh e d Sa nd ra a sid e , k ic ke d h e r w hil e she wa s on the g round, and be g an attac king Rona ld by stabbing h i m i n the hea d and in the bac k. Appellant then we nt throug h the house ripping the t elephone lines out of the wa lls. He took Sandra’ s cell phone, he r key s to the house, and Ronald’s c ar ke y s. Appellant took a few m oments to wipe the blood off his arms a

nd hands, locked Sandra and Ronald inside the house on his way out, and left in Ronald’s car . Ronald found his cell phone in the c ouch and ma nag ed to ca lled 9-1-1. The trial c ourt admitted pictures s h o w in g Sandra’ s living room af

ter she a nd Ronald had bee n attacke d. The picture s showed blood smear ed or splatt ere d throug hout the living room at various place s and on var ious objects—the front do o r, t h e walls , the ca rpet, the r

ug , the television, the enter tainment cente r, the c ouches, c lothes, CD case s, bookshelves, bottled drinks, a fan, and a pur se. The pa rame dic who tre ated Sandr a desc ribed the sc ene a s having “quite a bit of blood.” Howeve r, police did not rec over the knife used to c ut and stab the victims. Sandra state d it was like a “ dag g er knife” and that it had ridg es on both sides. Althoug h s h e p h y s i ca l ly indicated its size to the trial04

- 09

- 00 22 0- CR

- 3- court, no de scription of her g esture a ppear s in the rec ord. Ronald did not s ee t h e k n i fe. O ffice r Michae l J ohnson testified he wa s told the knife was a “butche r/steak” knife. Both Sandra

and Ronald re quired tre atment for their wounds. The pa rame dic who tre ated Sandra te stified her w ounds had alre ady been ba ndag ed whe n he ar

rived, a nd he wa s informed ther e
was no ar t er ial bleeding . Be cause he did not want to disturb any blood-clotting by

removing the bandag es, he did not examine the wounds. He testified his initi al exam of Sandra r evea led only the wounds to the arm, a

nd such wounds ar e “not r eally life-thre atening ” unless an ar tery is punctured; howeve r, he state d he thought Sandra’ s wounds wer e life- threatening beca use appe llant “might have cut or sliced the arte ry

. . . .” He then testified that Sandra ’s pulse rate was f ast, her blood pr essure was low, a

nd, once s h e wa s i n t he bac k of the ambulance, he noticed she w as sweating or diaphore tic, all fac tors indicating to him that she had lost blood. He testified it is possible to “bleed
ou t” fr om a

c ut t o th e a rm

a nd e xpla ine d th a t he tr ans po rted S andra “ Cod e 3” to t

he ho sp ita l, meaning“with lights a

nd sirens,” a d esi g nation for life -threatening injuries. He testified Sandr a
rec eived oxy g en tre atment and that he unsucce ssfully attempted five t i m es to start an intrave nous l i n e. Ho we v er , h e i n d i ca t edi ti s o ft en m o re d i ff i cu l tt o s t a r t IV s o n s o m eo n e e x p er i en ci n g l ar ge amounts o f b l o o d loss. Upon arriva l at the hospital, the para medic obser

ved hospital staff g ive Sandra a blood transfusion. She spent a tot al o f t wo wee ks in the hospital. Sandra testified he r
m edial nerve wa s completely cut in half, whic h require d surg ery . She now has diff iculty lifting heavy objects and g ripping a stee ring whee l, and she suff ers f rom numbness, tingling, and loss of
sen s a ti o n in th e in

ju r e d ar m, r e n d e r in g h e r d is a

b le d an d u n a

b le to c o n ti n u e h e r e mp lo y ment of dr ivi nga sc ho ol b us .04

- 09

- 00 22 0- CR

- 4- DI SCU SSIO N On a pp e a l, ap pe lla

nt ar g ue s the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction bec ause the State failed to prove that either (1) the knife used was a deadly wea pon or (2) the assault re sulted in serious bodily injuries. We reviewthe leg al and factua l sufficie ncy of t he evidence under the appropr iate standa rds of re view. Se e J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 307 , 318 -1 9 (19 79 ) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Dewberry

v. Sta te , 4 S.W. 3d 73 5, 74 0 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) ( same ); W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( fa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y ); Cle wis v . S

tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 96 ) ( same ). Th e sta

nd ard of re vie w is the same in b oth dir e c t and

c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e c a se s. Kut zn e r v . S tat e , 9 94 S.W. 2d 18 0, 18 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Th e jur y , a s tr ie r o f f

a c t, i s th e so le judge of the c redibility

of the witnesse s and the we ight to b e g iven to their testimony ; theref ore,
rec onciliation of any

conflicts in the evide nce is within the exclusive pr ovince of the jury
. Mosley

v . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 249, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). A p e r s o nc o m m i t s f

i r s td e g r e e f

e l o n y b u r g l ar

y i f h e e n t e r s a

h a b i t a t i o nan d

i n t e n t i o n a l l y, knowing ly , or re cklessly

cause s bodily injury to a

nother and either (1) cause s serious bodily injury to another or (2) uses or exhibi ts a deadly wea pon when causingbodily

injury . T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§ 22 .0 1( a )( 1) , 22 .0 2( a ) ( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 09 ), § 3 0. 02 (a ), (d ) ( Ve rn on 20 03 ). Se ri ou s b od ily injury is “ bodily injury that cre ates a substantial r isk of death or that cause s death, ser ious permane nt disfigur ement, or pr otrac ted loss or impairment of the f unction of any bodily member or org an.” Id. § 1.07(a) (46) ( Ver

non Supp. 2009). He re, t he State pr e se nte d ampl e e vid e nc e ind ic a tin g that Sand ra su ff e re d s e ri ou s b od ily injuries. First, two and a half y ear s after

the assault, Sandra

testified (1) she had numbness and04

- 09

- 00 22 0- CR

- 5- tingling in the injured ar

m, (2) it is hard for her to lift heavy objects or g rab a

steeringwhee l for long periods of time, a

nd (3) she no longe r has a sensation of touch or

hot and cold. Sandra te stified that beca use of he r injuries, she is now considere d disabled and unable to dr ive a sc hool bus. Base d on Sandra’ s testimony , we conclude that she sus tained protracted loss or i mpairment of the func tion of a bodil y member, and there fore , she sustained ser ious bodily injury
. Se e Bo te llo v . S

tat e , 693 S.W .2d 528, 530 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref’d) (holding victim’s testimony that he could no longe r use his hand as well as befor e he was assaulted is suf ficient evidenc e to show impairment of the func tion of bodily

member)
. Second, the pa

rame dic testified Sandra ’s in j u ry wa s life threatening . He state d it was p o s s i b l e t o “b l ee d

o u t ” f ro m a c u t t o t h e a r m , an d h i s t es t i m o n y

i n d i ca t edS an dra h adl o s tl ar ge amounts of blood from her wounds bec ause of

the sig ns she was ex h i b i t i n g : high pulse r ate, low blood p re s s u re , and diaphor esis. That the pa rame dic was una

ble to establish I V ac cess wa s consistent with the other indications that she had lost lar g e amounts of blood. His dete rmination that she re quired immediate “Code 3” transport—a desig nation for life threatening injuries—indicates he conside red he r condition to be life thre atening
. Finally , Sandra r ece ived a blood tra nsfusion upon
arr iving a t t h e emer g ency room, indicating she wa s in dire nee d of blood to replac e what she had los t. B a se d o n th e pa

ra me dic ’s te sti mony , w e c on c lud e Sand ra su sta ine d a

su bs tanti a l r isk

of de a th d u e t o b l o o d

l o s s , an d t h e r e f o r e , s h e s u s t a i n e d

s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. Se e Bo ne

y v . S tat e , 572 S.W .2d 529, 5 3 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (evidenc e that blood loss from wound could c ause shoc k which could ca use death is sufficient to establish serious bodily injury). I n su m, the State pr e se nte d a mpl e e vid e nc e to sh owtha t th e a ssa ult re su lte d in

se ri ou s b od ily injury to Sandra. The ref

ore, the evidenc e is leg ally and factually sufficie nt to sustain the conviction04

- 09

- 00 22 0- CR

- 6- ba se d o n th e the or

y tha t a pp e lla nt e nte re d Sa

nd ra ’s ho me and

int e nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y
c a u s e d h e r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e s o n a

pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh