C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS PABL O PONCE, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No

. 08 -0 7- 00 31 1- CR

Appea l from the 409th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC#20060D05275)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l from a c onviction for the of fense of assa

ult on a public serva

nt. Trial wa s to the court a

nd the cour

t assessed punishm en t at six y ear s’ imprisonment. For the rea sons that fo llo w, we a ff

ir m. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On No ve mbe r 8 , 20 06 , El Pa so Pol ic e Of fi c e r Mic ha e l L ic on and

his pa rt ne r, Of fi c e r Y ve tte Guer rer o, wer e on bicycle patrol in downtown El Paso, Texas. The office rs observe d Appellant urinatingin public – a viol ation of t he law. Appellant wa s drinking be er, a lthough it was not illeg al to c on sume a lc oh ol at that loc a tio n. Th e tw o o ff ic e rs de ta ine d App e lla

nt, wh o a pp e are d v e ry

ne rv ou s, and told him to relax . There wer e three other people in the alley . Offic er L icon testified that all four individuals were told to sit on the ground for the s afe ty of t he two office rs. Appellant and two of the individuals presented ide ntification, but the fourth wa s unable to do so. The office rs observe d that Ap pe lla nt’ s id e nti fi c a tio n d id no t matc h h is a g e or a pp e ara nc e . O ff ic e r L ic on

a dv ise d App e lla

nt t o tell the truth since he w as only beingheld for a C l as s C ticket. Appellant insisted he wa s the individual on the license.Whil e the of fice rs ra n the identification in an ef fort to obtain a c ross-re fer ence on the computer, A

ppellant y elled that he w as not g oing to jail, and he took of f running

. I t took a

bout ten y ard s f or Of fi c e r L ic on to c a tc h up to him

. On the so uth sid e of the a lle y , th e re wa s a re sid e nc e wi th a bric k wall. The office r had to push Appellant up ag ainst the brick wall using his body weig ht. H e drew his right a

rm ac ross Appellant’s c hin are a, and he felt Appe llant bite him with hi s mouth. The bit e wa s p a inf

ul. Th e of

fi c e r p inn e d App e lla

nt ag a ins t the wa ll whi le Ap pe lla nt co nti nu e d to r e sis t. Whil e Of fice r Gue rre ro c al l ed fo r assi stance on the ra dio, Office r L icon forc ed Appe llant to the g ro un d in an atte mpt

to s ub du e and

ha nd c uf f h im. To g e t App e lla

nt’ s arm s o ut f

ro m un de rn e a th h im, Offic er L icon delivered t wo short jabs to the kidney are a. Appe llant relea sed his arms, and the office r

was a ble to handcuf

f him. They

then awa ited for tra

nsport t o t h e p o l i ce s tation. Office r L icon identified sever al photogr aphs of his injuries and those of Appellant. The se photog raphs, whic h wer e taken by Offic er Guerr ero, w ere admitted into evidence

. Duringcross-e x amination, Of fi cer L icon admitted that he c ould have c alled for the identification sec tion to take the picture s, but he d i d not know if they would have be en of be tter quality . He put Appe llant into a modified headloc k, but he neve r plac ed Appe llant in a choke hold. Th e of fi c e r a dmi tte d to havin g be e n dis c ipl ine d on c e pr e vio us ly fo r pla c ing a he a dlo c k o n a

su sp e c t. In another i n s t an ce , h e was exonerated of the ac cusation. He also admitted to havinghad an alterc ation with another of fice r at a police station. Wh e ns h o w nt h e p h o t o g r a p ho f h i s b i t e w o un d , th e o f

f i c e r n o t i c e d t e e thm ar

k s i na c i r c le surroundingwhat appe are d to be a bite wound. H e wa s then shown a se t of dental i m p ressions of Ap pe lla nt’ s u pp e r a nd low e r t e e th ma de by Dr . Tho ma s Webb

. Th e se imp re ssi on s we re a dmi tte d into

e vid e nc e . T he of

fi c e r s tate d th a t th e up pe r t e e th i mpr e ssi on might have ma de le ss t ha n a fu ll c ir c le but he knew he had bee n bitten. T he office r was unawa re if Appellant had a

ny denture s, and he w asStat e’ s E xhi b i t N o . O ne shows a pho t o graph o f a dis co l o rat i o n on O f

f i cer Li co n’ s arm wi t h what ap p ears 1 t o be s ev er al t ee t h ma r k s . D ef en s e Exh i bi t N o. O n e s h ows a ph ot og r aph of de n t al i mpr es s i on s of

t h e i n s i de of A pp el l ant ’ s upper an d l ower mo ut h. T he upper j aw demons t r at es a s eemi ng l y f ul l s et of t eet h w hi l e t he l ower j aw shows s i x t eet h i n f

ront and a gap ext end i ng t o t he l ast m o l ar on each si d e o f t he m o ut h. unable to che ck Appe llant’s pockets be cause Appellant had def ecated in his clothes. Offic er L icon did not notice that Appellant wa s in any pain, and he did not think he ha d injured Appe llant when he jabbed him in the kidney s. The bruising o n Ap p ellant’s fa ce de picted in the photog raph oc curr ed wh e n App e lla

nt’ s f a c e wa s a g a ins t th e br ic k w a ll. Appellant testified in his own def ense. N either he nor anyone else in the group ha d urinated in public. The four

of them we re sitting down when the of fice rs appr oach ed an d asked f or identification. He admitted that he had showed someone else’s identification, but he told the office rs that he wa s g oin g to g e t his I .D . a nd wo uld br ingit b a c k w ithso me on e to t e ll the of fi c e rs wh o h e wa s. He de nied that he ra

n; he just moved to the side and wa s over by the wall whe n the offic er a rre sted him. Appe llant te stified that he had surre ndere d, and had place d his ha nds behind his back whe n the of fi c e r p us he d h im a g a ins t th e wa ll a nd str uc k h is h e a d a g a ins t it

. Appellant also c laimed that he ha d suffe red injuries dur ing the incident, and that he had

rec eived a bout fifteen blows. He denied bi ting Office r L icon. He had been taken immediately to I NS

a ft e r be ing in a ce ll fo r jus t a fe w minute s. Th e re , Of fi c e r L ic on tol d him that he wa s g oin g to p re ss char g es ag ainst him for the biting, but the officer did not have a bi te m ark on his arm as they heade d to the immigration office. A ppellant was shown the dental impressions. He r elated that he only had six teeth in the fr ont of his lower jawand that ther e we re spa ces of at l east one and a ha lf inches be tw e e n te e th m ark s. 1 SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE In tw o is su e s f

or re vie w, Ap pe lla

nt cont end s that th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua llyins uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c onvic tio n. I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of e vid e nc e , w e c on sid e r a ll evidenc e in the lig ht most favo ra b l e t o t h e ver dict and dete rmine whe ther a ny rational trier

of fa ct could have found t he essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L .Ed.2d 560 (1979). We look at “‘e vents occ urring befor e, duringand af

ter the c ommissi on of t he offense and may rely on actions of the de fenda

nt which show an understanding and common desig n to do the prohibi ted act.’” Ho op e r v . S tate , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), q u o t i n g C o rd ov a v . Stat e , 698 S.W .2d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 85 ). We m

us t a c c ount f

or “ ‘t he re sp on sib ili ty of th e tr ier of fa c t to fa ir ly

re so lve c on fl ic ts i n te sti mony , to wei g h th e e vid e nc e , a nd to d ra w r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s f ro m ba sic fa c ts t o u lti mate fac ts.’” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d at 13, quoting Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318-19. In revie wing the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence to suppor t a conviction, we are to view all the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht, favoringneither pa rty
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 2 3 S. W. 3 d 1, 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cl e w i s v . S ta te , 92 2 S.W.2 d 1 26 , 1 29 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Ev ide nc e is fac tually insufficient, if it is so weak that it would be clear ly wrongand mani fe s t ly

unjust to allow the ver dict to stand or the findingof gui lt is aga inst the gr eat we ight a nd preponde ranc e of the available evi d en ce . Johnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 11 . T he re fo re , th e qu e sti on we mus t c on sid e r i n conducting a fac tual-suffic iency revie w is whether a neutra l r eview of all the evidenc e, both for a nd ag ainst the finding , demonstrates that the p ro o f o f guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confide nce in the f

act f inder’s de terminati o n o r t h at the proof of guilt, although ade quate if taken alone, is g reatly

outweig hed by

contra ry proof. See id. In p e rf or min g thi s r e vie w, we are to give due de fe re nc e to t he fa c t f ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio ns . See id. a t 8- 9; Clewis, 922 S.W .2d at 136. The f act f inder is the judg e of th e cr ed i b i l i t y o f the witnesses and ma

y “believe all, some, or none of the testimony

. . . .” Cha mb e rs v . S tate , 805 S.W .2dT h e i n di ct men t pr ov i ded: 2 [ O ] n or about t he 8t h day of N ovemb er , 2006 , . . . i n the C o un t y of E l P aso an d S t ate o f T ex as, PA BL O PONCE , . . . d id the n a n d the re inte n tio n a lly, kn o w ing ly, a n d re c k le ssly c a u se b o d ily i n j u r y t o M I C HA E L L I C ON , a p e rs o n the D e fen d a n t kn e w w a s a p u b lic se rv a n t, to -w it: A ci ty o f El P a so P o l i ce O ff

i cer, by bit i ng M IC H A E L L IC O N ab o ut the b o dy w i th D efend a nt’s m o uth , a n d s ai d of

f en s e wa s c ommi t t ed by D ef en dan t w h i l e t h e s ai d M I C HA E L L I C ON was la w fully d isc h a rg ing a n o ff ic ia l d u ty .
. . . 45 9, 46 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). Con se qu e ntl y , w e may fi nd the e vid e nc e fa c tua lly

ins uf fi c ie nt o nly wher e nec essar

y to preve nt a manife st injust ice f rom occ urring

. See J

ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 9, 12; Cai n v . S tate , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). T h e e l e m e n t s o f a s s a

u l t o na p u b l i c s e r v an tar e th a tAp p e l l an t : ( 1 ) i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn o w i n g l y,

or re cklessly

(2) c aused bodily

injury to O ffice r L icon (3) while knowing he was a public serva

nt (4) who was la

wfully discharg ing a

n officia l duty

. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.01(a) (b) ( Ver non Supp. 2009). 2 Appellant ac knowledg es that Off icer L icon was in unifor

m and car rying out his off

icial police duties during the cour se of the incident. But he challeng es the State’s evidenc e that the bite occ urre d on the ar m of Off icer L icon and that Appellant’s teeth made the bite marks. I t was necessa ry for the State to prove that Appe llant bit Officer L icon about his body

wit h h i s m o u t h

. A “mouth” is “the cavity bounded externally

by the lips and internally b y t h e p hary nx that enclose s in the ty pical verte brate the tong ue, gums, and teeth.” Montoya v . State, 841 S.W .2d 419, 422 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 906 S.W .2d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We conclude that the evidenc e wa s leg ally sufficie nt to support the conviction. Off icer L icon te sti fi e d th a t w he n he put his arm s aro un d App e lla nt’ s c hin are a uti lizin g a

mod if ie d h e a dlo c k, he fe lt Ap pe lla nt b ite his arm wi th h is m outh. Th e of fi c e r t he n p ull e d h is a

rm fu rt he r a c ro ss A

pp e lla nt’ s c hin

are a to b re ak th e bit e . H e wa s f amil iar w ithwh at it fel t like to b e bitte n, and the bit e wa s p a inf

ul. This evidence alone wa s l ega l l y s u fficie nt. See G omer v . State, N o . 0 5

- 0 2

- 0 0 7 7 1

- CR , 2 0 0 3 WL21525312, at *4 (Te x . App.–Dallas July 8, 2003, no pet.) (not de signe d for publication). We also conclude that the evidenc e was sufficie nt to demonstrate that the biting oc curr ed, and that Appellant bit the offic er. The court was fre e to disbe lieve Appellant’s testimony , and to believe the testimony

of the off

icer

. T h e o fficer’s te stimony indicated that he was bitten duringthe

a lte rc a tion, and

the re wa s a

ph oto g ra phof his arm ind ic a tin g te e th m ark s a s te sti fi e d to by bo th Appellant and the office r. Opposed to this evidenc e are Appellant’s denials and the asser tion that the bite marks could not have been caused by Appellant’s mouth g iven the denta l impressions. The court could well have believed that the teeth in the upper jaw ca used the bite mar

ks or that the mar

ks on the arm did ind e e d c oin c ide wi th t

he de nta l im

pr e ssi on s. Ap pe lla nt c on te nd s th a t it

wa s in c umb e nt u

po n th e State to p ro vide e x pert testimo ny to de mon str a te that App e lla nt’ s te e th c ou ld h ave ca

us e d th e inj ur

y . H e c ite s Chaney v . State, 775 S.W. 2d 72 2, 72 5 (T e x. Ap p. –D a lla s 19 89 , pe t. re f’ d) in su pp or t of his c onte nti on . T he re , th e State utiliz ed a d en t al expert to demonstrate the defe ndant’s guilt by matchinghis bite with bit e mar ks found on one of

the victims. There was no other evidenc e connec ting the defe ndant to the cr ime. Id. Her e, the c ourt was a

ble to view the photog raphs a nd the demea

nor of the w itnesses. Vi ew i n g the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, we find the evide nce le g ally sufficie nt to support the conviction. View i n g the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht, the evidenc e is not g reatly outweig hed by contra ry proof. Acc ording ly , we overr ule I ssues One and Two and af firm the judg ment of the trial

c ourt
. ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice November

4, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)