Opinion filed June 12, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals _____________

No. 11-12-00165-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 pleaded 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, the trial court affirmatively found that 

Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon and sentenced 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 Ronnie 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 that 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 

anyone 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 passed out, and Kayla called 911.

Emergency medical personnel arrived and took Vargas to the hospital, and 

police officers secured the scene. Midland Police Detectives Kay Therwhanger 

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 

Freddy’s; they appeared to be looking for someone. She 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

Therwhanger obtained Appellant’s name through an interview with Snyder, she

sent patrol officers to Appellant’s duplex at 3122 West Kansas. Detective 

Rodriguez conducted a photo lineup at the hospital, and without hesitation, Vargas 
3

identified Appellant as being involved in the fight. But Vargas could not say who 

had stabbed him.

When officers 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 quietly, 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 lay 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 behind. 

Appellant told detectives that, when Vargas turned and grabbed Appellant’s shirt, 

Appellant “just reacted.” Detective Therwhanger 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 Therwhanger 

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, Appellant 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. Appellant also told Detective 

Therwhanger 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 Appellant 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 the 

alley behind the building.”

In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant 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 made to connect this knife 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 elements 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 evidence, 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 testimony. 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.3d 
5

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 the 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 police 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 concluded 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.