Opinion issued September 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00907-CR

———————————

RANDY MAZUERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1870669

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Randy Mazuera appeals a judgment convicting him of misdemeanor assault 

of a family member. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b) (West Supp. 

2014). A jury found Mazuera guilty, and the trial judge sentenced him to 180 days 
2

in county jail. In his sole issue on appeal, Mazuera contends that the evidence is 

legally insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

Background

Mazuera and Asusena Cenobio dated from 2003 to 2011. They have two 

children together—J.M. and R.M., who were eight and six, respectively, at the time 

of the incident. 

At trial, Latoya Archie, who knew neither Mazuera nor Cenobio, testified 

that on December 31, 2012, she was driving out of a Wal-Mart parking lot when 

she saw Mazuera intentionally slam Cenobio’s head inside a truck door in the 

neighboring parking lot of a fast food restaurant. Archie stopped her car and called 

9-1-1 because she feared for Cenobio’s safety and because she saw two children 

running back and forth between the truck and another car. Archie did not see 

Mazuera hit or push Cenobio, but she saw Cenobio fall. 

Cenobio testified that she and Mazuera were no longer romantically 

involved in December 2012, but that they agreed to meet at 10:00 a.m. at the fast 

food restaurant so that Mazuera could give her grocery money. After Mazuera 

arrived with his girlfriend and daughter, the children ate and played in the 

playground, and Mazuera gave Cenobio money for groceries. 

Cenobio testified that when she decided to leave, Mazuera grabbed J.M. and 

R.M. and said he was taking them with him. Cenobio protested, but Mazuera put 
3

the children in his truck. Cenobio testified that while she was trying to get her sons

out of the truck, Mazuera “tried to slam the door on [her] head.” Cenobio raised 

her arm to protect her head and the door hit her on the shoulder and arm, causing 

pain. She testified that Mazuera then slammed her on the concrete, which hurt. 

Cenobio testified that after the incident, she went to the home of her mother, 

Consuela Perez. She was in a lot of pain, and stayed in bed while at Perez’s house

because she could not move. Cenobio testified that she had bruises on her back 

and that she asked Perez to massage her back because it hurt. 

Perez testified. She confirmed that Cenobio cried while at her house, but she 

also testified that Cenobio did not complain about any pain. Perez said that 

Cenobio did not ask for a massage and that Perez did not see any bruises on 

Cenobio. Perez testified that she and Cenobio do not have a good relationship, and 

that Cenobio “likes to lie a lot.” 

Maria Magana, Mazuera’s live-in girlfriend of two years, also testified. She 

told the jury that, as they were leaving the fast food restaurant, Mazuera asked 

Cenobio for her permission to take the kids to visit with his brother, who was 

visiting from Colombia. She testified that Mazuera and Cenobio were talking 

beside his truck and that Cenobio started “making a scene . . . trying to make [her 

kids] feel bad,” and telling the boys to get out of the truck when the boys did not 

want to. According to Magana, Cenobio was yanking on the truck door, trying to 
4

get the boys out of the truck, and fell down. Magana testified that after Cenobio 

got up, she slapped Mazuera, and then Cenobio and Mazuera talked calmly by 

Cenobio’s car until the police arrived. Magana testified that she did not see 

Mazuera push, grab, or slam Cenobio on the ground. 

The complaint and information set forth two manners and means for the 

assault—“intentionally and knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury” by “pushing the 

Complainant with his hand” and by “striking the Complainant with the door of a 

vehicle.” The jury was charged in the disjunctive and returned a verdict of guilty.

Discussion

In his sole point of error, Mazuera contends that the evidence is legally 

insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, Mazuera argues that a rational 

jury could not have found him guilty given Cenobio’s purportedly selfcontradictory testimony and the inconsistencies between Cenobio’s testimony and 

that of the other witnesses. 

A. Standard of Review

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any 

rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90, 109 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 
5

2781, 2789 (1979)); see also Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854, 859 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011) (holding Jackson standard is only standard to use when determining 

sufficiency of evidence). 

“The jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the 

witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 

110 (citing Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); see 

Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (The jury is the 

“sole judge of the weight of the evidence and may choose to believe all, some, or 

none of it.”). “A jury may accept one version of the facts and reject another, and it 

may reject any part of a witness’s testimony.” McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 110

(citing Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). “We may 

not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence or substitute our 

judgment for that of the fact finder.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 

750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). We afford almost complete deference to the jury’s 

determinations of credibility and we resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence in 

favor of the verdict. Id. (citing Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008); Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).

B. Applicable Law

As relevant here, a person commits assault of a family member if the person

intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a person with whom the actor 
6

has or has had a dating relationship, or against an individual who is a parent of the 

actor’s child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2); § 71.0021 (West 

2011); § 71.003 (West 2011). Bodily injury is defined as “physical pain, illness, or 

any impairment of physical condition.” See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(8) 

(West Supp. 2014). 

C. Analysis

The information charged Mazuera with “intentionally and knowingly 

caus[ing] bodily injury” by both “pushing the Complainant with his hand” and by 

“striking the Complainant with the door of a vehicle.” The jury was charged in the 

disjunctive, and thus the jurors were not required to agree upon a single manner 

and means. See Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 

Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied, 504 

U.S. 958, 112 S. Ct. 2309 (1992). Mazuera contends that the inconsistencies in the 

testimony render the evidence insufficient to support either of the manner and 

means charged.

We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s guilty verdict. 

Archie, who knew none of the parties, testified that she witnessed Mazuera 

intentionally slam Cenobio’s head in the truck door. And Cenobio testified that 

Mazuera tried to slam the door on her head, and that she raised her arm to protect 

herself, causing the door to slam into her shoulder and arm and cause her pain. 
7

Cenobio also testified that Mazuera slammed her onto the ground, causing her 

further pain. Finally, Cenobio testified that after the assault, she was in a lot of 

pain, stayed in bed because she could not move, had bruises on her back, and asked 

Perez to massage her back to alleviate the pain. This evidence supports both 

manner and means alleged in the information. 

Mazuera points out inconsistencies in the testimony supporting the verdict 

and evidence that supported his claims of innocence. For example, Archie testified 

that she witnessed Mazuera slam the car door on Cenobio’s head, but Cenobio 

testified that he did not slam her head in the truck door. Mazuera also points to the 

fact that Archie did not witness him hit or push Cenobio, while Cenobio testified 

that he grabbed her and slammed her to the ground. Likewise, Cenobio claimed to 

be bruised and to have asked Perez for a massage, but Perez testified that Cenobio 

did not complain about pain, show her any bruises, or ask for a massage, and that 

Cenobio lies. Finally, Mazuera argues that his girlfriend testified that he did not 

assault Cenobio. While the evidence conflicted in some respects, it is the province 

of the jury to accept one version of the facts and reject another. See Heiselbetz, 

906 S.W.2d at 504 (jury is the “sole judge of the weight of the evidence and can

choose to believe all, some, or none of it”); McGregor, 394 S.W.3d at 109–10 

(court of appeals defers to jury’s determinations of credibility and resolves any 

inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the verdict). Because the standard of 
8

review requires that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, 

we conclude that a rational juror could have found that Mazuera intentionally or 

knowingly caused Cenobio bodily injury by pushing her with his hand or striking 

her with the door of a vehicle. See Heiselbetz, 906 S.W.2d at 504; McGregor, 394 

S.W.3d at 109–10. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was legally sufficient 

to support the judgment. See, e.g., Starks v. State, 127 S.W.3d 127, 133–34 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d) (affirming assault conviction despite 

conflicts in witnesses’ testimony because jury was free to believe or disbelieve all 

or any part of a witness’s testimony).

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Rebeca Huddle

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).