Opinion filed June 12, 2014



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ _______ 

### No. 11

- 12

- 00 165

- CR

______ ___ ____ 

### TRAVIS LEE WILLIAMS , Appellant V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR37863

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant
, Travis Lee Williams
, appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant ple a d ed true to the enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years and a fine of $3,000

. Based upon the verdict of the jury
, t he trial court affirmatively found that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon and senten ced him accordingly. In a single issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.2 Appellant went to a bar in Midland called Fast Freddy’s where he and some friends played pool. Appellant and Ro nnie Snyder played a game where the player punches a bag and the machine indicates how hard the player punched. Joe Vargas
and his friend Randell Charles Phil Collins joined the game and took turns playing
it with Appellant and Snyder. The men agreed tha t the loser of each round would pay $1 for the next game. When the bet increased to $20, Vargas won and decided to quit playing while he was ahead , but the other men wanted a chance to win the $20 back

. Collins went outside to talk to his wife Kayla, and someone came outside and said Vargas needed his help. When Collins went back inside, he saw
one of the men from the punching game holding Vargas back, but he did not see

anyo ne punching or stabbing Vargas. The bartender threatened to call the police
, and Collins and Vargas left through the front door. When they got outside, Kayla saw blood on Vargas’s shirt and started screaming that he had been stabbed

. Vargas pas sed out, and Kayla called 911. Emergency medical personnel arrived and took Vargas to t he hospital, and police officers secured the scene. Midland Police Detectives Kay Therw h anger and Rosie Rodriguez arrived and interviewed witnesses. None of the witnesses saw the stabbing or a knife. Witness Christina Gonzales saw two men enter Fast
Fre ddy’s ; they appeared to be looking for someone

. S he said that one of the men was wearing a white shirt and the other was wearing a black cap

. Although Gonzales did not see the fight, she saw the man in the white shirt exit through the back door after the fight. Officers found and photographed a shoe print behind the building

. Snyder had outstanding warrants and was arrested

. After Detective
Therw h anger obtained Appellant’s name through an interview with Snyder , she sent patrol o fficers to Appellant’s duplex at 3122 West Kansas. Detective Rodriguez conducted a photo lineup at the hospital, and without hesitation
, Vargas3 identified Appellant as being involved in the fight . B ut Vargas coul d not say who
had stabbed him.
When o fficers arrived at Appellant’s residence , two officers approached the
front door while two officers watched the back door. When Officer Blake Bush
knocked on the front door
, Officer Kenneth Angell and his partner saw Appellant open the back door very quie tly , discreetly close the door, and start running at a full sprint. Officer Angell testified that
, when they announced that they were police officers and yelled for Appellant to stop, Appellant immediately put his
hands in the air and la y on the ground. Appellant was arrested.
In his recorded statement to police, Appellant admitted that he and Snyder were in a fight at Fast Freddy’s. According to Appellant, Snyder and Vargas were arguing, and as they were about to fight, Appellant grabbed Vargas from beh ind. Appellant told detectives that
, when Vargas turned and grabbed Appellant’s shirt, Appellant “just reacted.” Detective Therw h anger asked Appellant what he did after Vargas grabbed his shirt, and Appellant said, “Honestly, I think I took a knife
to him.” Appellant said that he carries a pocket knife. Detective Therw h anger asked Appellant whether he took his knife out of his pocket and stabbed Vargas, and Appellant said, “I think.” But when asked how many times, Ap pellant said, “I
have no idea.” Appellant did not believe that the victim had a weapon. Appellant told the detective that he wiped blood on the white T

- shirt that he was wearing, took off the shirt, and hid it near Fast Freddy’s. Appe llant also told Detective
Therw h anger that
, when he exited through the rear of the building, he dropped the
knife outside ; he described the knife as having a black handle and a Kershaw
blade. Appellant drew a map and showed the detective where he dropped the knife
and where he hid the white T

- shirt. Appellant said that he took off the jeans he had been wearing when he got home, and he gave consent for officers to retrieve those jeans from his bedroom

.4 Officers found blood on the jeans and the shoes that Ap pellant had been wearing. Appellant’s wallet and driver’s license were still in the pocket of those jeans, and the pattern from his shoe was “similar to the pattern that [was] photographed in t he alley behind the building.” In his sole issue on appeal, App ellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the assault itself, but he contends that he was not shown to be the person who committed the assault. Specifically, Appellant argues that, although the eyewitnesses identified Appellant as being involved in the fight
, “no witness could identify appellant as having stabbed anyone that night at Fast Freddy’s.” Appellant concedes that
, while his statement to police indicates that he
stabbed the victim, “this statement was made in the context of appellant’s continued assertion that he could not remember what happened on the night in question.” Appellant admits that he told police where to find the knife, but he argues that “no effort was ever ma de to connect this knif e with the crime in question.” When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elemen ts of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979); Gross v. State , 380 S.W.3d 181, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This standard requires us to defer to the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to weigh the evid ence, and to draw reasonable
inferences to reach ultimate facts. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 316; Gross , 380
S.W.3d at 185. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and it is free to accept or reject any or all of a witness’s testimon y. Saxton v. State , 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Identity may be proven “by either direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled
with all reasonable inferences from that evidence.” Gardner v. State , 306 S.W.3d5 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellant is correct that none of the witnesses unequivocally identified him as the person who stabbed Vargas. However, Appellant admitted in his recorded

statement that he “took a knife to him.” An eyewitness saw a man with a white
shirt leave through the rear exit after the fight, and Appellant admitted that he left through th e rear exit, dropped the knife, and hid his white T

- shirt. While the blood
on the knife was not tested to determine if it matched Vargas ’s , the knife and white
T

- shirt were found where Appellant told the officer’s to search. There was blood on the jeans, shirt, and shoes that Appellant was wearing during the fight , and his
shoe print was similar to the one found near the rear exit of the building. Moreover, the jury could have found that Appellant committed the assault from the fact that he ran from poli ce when they arrived at his home. See Burks v. State , 876 S.W.2d 877, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“Evidence of flight is admissible as a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.”)

. Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury
could have rationally conclude d beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was the person who stabbed the victim. Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is overruled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JIM R. WRIGHT June 12, 2014 CHIEF JUSTICE Do not publish

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.