AFFIRMEI); Opinion Filed October 31, 2012.

In The 

### Qniirt if

## Apiiahi Fift1i 

## Diitrirt uf Jcxa at 1at1a No. 05-11-01534-CR
JAMES ALLEN BALL, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 059352 

### OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang Opinion By Justice Lang James Allen Ball, Jr., appeals the trial court’sjudgmentconvictinghim ofrobbery. Thejury found Ball guilty ofrobbery. Ball pleaded true to the enhancement and the jury assessed his punishment at ninety years ofimprisonment. Ball raises one issue on appeal arguing the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because it does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused bodily injury. We conclude the evidence is sufficient. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OfficerThomas Unerfusserresponded to areport ofarobbery at James Avery’s residence.When he arrived. Avery and a friend, Scott I lame!, were at the residence. lie observed that Avery had an injury to his forehead that had a little bit of blood and Hamcl had a laceration to his biceps and his finger was bleeding. lie also observed that the glass on the Front door ot the residence had been “pushed in” and the frame around the glass had been broken. In addition, there was evidence that there had been a struggle inside the residence. Avery and Ilamel i-eported that two white men hadenteredtheresidence andtookAvery’s wallet. Later, Hamel identified l3all fromaphoto line—up

as one ofthe men who entered Avery’s residence. Bali was indicted for robbery. The indictment alleged Ball intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly caused bodily injury to Avery by striking him. The indicted offense was enhanced by a prior conviction. Afler a trial, thejury found Ball guilty. Ball pleaded true to the enhancement and the jury assessed his punishment at ninety years ofimprisonment. II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole issue on appeal. Ball argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because it does not establish beyond a reasonable doubtthat he causedbodily injury. He claims that Avery did not testify that he suffered any physical pain, illness, or impairment ofhis physical condition as a result ofthe injury. Also, Ball contends that Avery was not taken to the hospital, did not request or receive emergency treatment, and did not receive outside medical treatment for his injury. The State responds that the evidence shows Avery was struck on the forehead, his injury bled, he had a scar from the injury, and Avery testified the strike to his head “knocked [him] a little dingy” and might have briefly knocked him out. A. Staiidard ofReview When reviewing the sufficiency ofthe evidence, an appellate court considers all ofthe evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether thejury was rationally

—2—Justitied in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. S’eJackson i’. Uiiinia, 443 U.S. 307. 3 I 8--I9 (1979); Mccciii v. State, 36$ S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Brooks r. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (pluralityop.). Appellatecourts arc requiredto determinewhether anyrationaljurorcouldhave Foundthe essential elements ofthe offensebeyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson. 443 U.S. at 319: Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 902 n. 19. An appellate court is required to defer to thejury’s credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge ot the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given to theirtestimony. SeeJackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 326; Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. All evidence, whether properly or improperly admitted, will be considered when reviewing the sufficiency of’ the evidence. See McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 130 S.Ct. 665, 672 (2010) (percuriam); Lockhart v. Nelso,i. 48$ U.S. 33, 41-42 (1988); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. B. Applicable Law A person commits theft ifhe unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the

ownerofproperty; appropriation ofproperty is unlawful ifitis withoutthe owners effectiveconsent. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 31.03(a). (b)(1) (West Supp. 2012). A person commits robbery ifhe intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. TEx. P1.:NAL CODE ANN. 

### § 29.02(a)(1) (West 2011). “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment ofphysical condition. TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

### § l.07(a)(8) (West Supp. 2012); La.cter v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). This definition appears to be purposefullybroad and seems to encompass even relatively minor physical contacts so long as they constitute more than mere offensive touching. Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2c1 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). This definition encompasses even relativelyminorphysical contact ifit constitutes more than offensive touching. Laster, 275 S.W.3d

—3—at 524: Lane, 7o3 S.W.2d at 786. Proof of bodily inlurv is mit dependent on the severity of violence used against the victim as long as some resulting physical pain, illness, or impairment ofphysical condition can be identified. Lane, 763 S.W.2d at 787; see 

### also J3oltan v. State. 619 S.W.2d 16(, 167 (Tex, Crim. App. 1981) (evidence ofcut sufficient to show bodily injury); .lrzaga v. State, 86 S.W.3d 767, 77879 (Tex. App.—-ElPaso 2002, nopet) (existenceofcut, scrape. orbruise sufficient evidence ofphysicalpain necessaryto establish bodily injury within meaning ofstatuteLTestimonythat a victim experienced physical pain is notrequired toprove bodily injury. rlrzaga, 86 S.W.3d at778—7c. Rather, evidence ofa visible injury allows for an inference ofpain. See 

### .4raga, 86 

### S.W.3d at 778 (jury permitted to draw inferences from evidence, including inference that victim actually felt or suffered physical pain); Goodin v. State, 750 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref’d) (although victimdidnuttestify he suffered “pain,”jurycould inferbruises and muscle strain caused “physical pain”). C. Application ofthe Law to tue I’acts The record shows OfficerUnerfussertestified thatwhen he arrived atAvery’s residence, he observed a small strike to Avery’s forehead between his eyes that had some blood on it. A photograph ofAvery’s injuryshowingblooddripping fromasmall cut onhis foreheadwas admitted into evidence. Aveiytestifiedhe had a scarfromthe injurytohis forehead. Also, Avery statedwhen he was struck. “it knocked [him] a little dingy” and that “it might have knocked [himj out.” Even though Avery did not testify he feltpain, thejury could have inferred from the blood, his statement that he was knocked a “little dingy” or may have been “knocked out,” and the subsequent scar caused by the strike to his head that Avery sufferedphysical pain. See Arzaga, 86 S.W.3d at 778 (jury permitted to draw inferences from evidence, including inference that victimactually felt or suttered physical pain) Goodiii, 77() S.W.2d at 859 (although victim did not testit he suffered “pain,”jury could infer bruises and muscle strain caused “physical pain”). Reviewing all ofthe evidence in the lightmost fiworable to thejury’s verdict, we conclude arationaljury could have Ibund the essential element ofboldily injury to support Ball’s conviction for robbery. Sec Ho/ton, 619 S\V2d at 167 (evidence ofcut sufficient to show bodily injury) Arzagu, 86 S.W.3d at 778—79 (existence ofcut, serape, orbruise sufficientevidenceofphysicalpainnecessaryto establish bodily injury within meaning ot statute). Issue one is decided against Ball. lii. CONCLUSION The evidence is sufficient to support Ball’s conviction for robbery. The trial court’s udgrnent is affirmed.

DOUGL’S LANG JUST Do Not Publish Ti:x. R.. Apr. P. 47 ill 534F.U05

——

### Qtnirt 

## of Apiia1s 

## Fifth Oitrict of xas at 1aItas 

### JUDGMENT JAMES ALLEN [3ALL, JR., Appellant No. 05-I 1-01534-CR V 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 1 5th Judicial District Court ol (3ravson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 059352). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Richterparticipating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRNIED.

Judgment entered October 31. 2012.

1 

### / ,v DOUGLAiS. LANG JUSTlØ