### NUM BER 13-09- 0032 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
ERIK VIL LA RR EA L, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF TE XAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 13 0t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of M ata go rda Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Er ik

Vi llarreal , w as conv ic ted o f agg ra v ated ass aul t, a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22 .0 2( a) ( 2) ( Ve r no n Su pp
. 20 09 )

. Th e tr i al c ou rt sent enced Vi ll ar re al to eig ht y ears’ impr is onment. On ap peal , Vi ll ar re al arg ues that: ( 1) the e v ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he c onv ic ti on; ( 2) the ev ide nce w as factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort the conviction; (3) the trial court err e d b y “ f ailing to reject the j ur y ’s v erdic t” ; and ( 4) the jur y ’s v erdic t imper mis si bly all ow ed a non- unani mous v erdic t. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Shor tl y after mid nig ht on M ay

1, 2006, Ma ta gorda C ounty Sher iff’s D epar

tment Dep uty Jo hn Bi ehunk o w as dis patc hed to a re si dence w her e a domest ic dis tur bance hadFi guer oa’ s f i r st nam e i s spel l ed v ar i ousl y as “ Ar i cel a, ” “Ar cel i , ” and “ Ar acel i ” i n t he r ecor d of t he t r i al 1 cour t pr oceedi ngs a nd i n t he a ppel l at e br i ef s. 2 been repor

ted. Ac cordin g to Dep u ty Bi e h u n ko, as soon as he ar ri v ed atthe re si dence , Araceli Figueroa “approa ch[e d] m e at m y patrol car, he r shirt comple tely bloo dy; her fa ce 1 blo o d y ; h e r s ma l l c h i l d r e n , s o me o f t h o s e h a d b l o o d o n t h e m a s w e l l

. A n d she w as in a hy ste ri cal st ate s creaming , c ry ing for me to ple ase hel p her .” Fi g ueroa opened the d oor to t he p atrol car, jum ped into the back sea t “pulling her kids inside w ith he r” and said

“‘ Pl ease g et me out o f here. ’” D eputy Bi ehunk o the n ent er ed th e resi dence l o oki ng for Vi ll ar re al, es cor

ted h im o ut, and ar re ste d hi m after Fi g ueroa pos it iv ely i denti fied hi m as her
ass ail ant. D eputy

Bi ehunk o tes ti fied that he obse rv ed “ a l arg e c ut on [F ig ueroa’ s] forehead and br uis ed, b ust ed up ey e and some s w ell ing to her f ace. ” Vi ll ar re al, on t he ot her hand, smel led “ [o]f al cohol ” but “ appeared i n a v er y ca lm, nonch ala nt manne r the e nti re ti me.” Dep uty Bi ehunk o then re -e ntered the re si dence to i nv est ig ate fur ther and “o bser

v ed a pretty g ood trai l of blo od . . . leadi ng f ro m the por ch” thathe “ fig ur ed” w as “c oming from [F ig uero a ’s] head w ound.” H e al so obser v ed bl ood “ smears a nd drops” i n the ki tch en, li v ing room, and hal lw ay of the resi denc e
. In t he bedroom, D eputy Bi ehunk o obs er

v ed “w hata p p e a r e d t o b e a s t r u g g l e o f s o me s o rti n t h e r e
. T h e b a t h ro o m d o o r h a d been ki ck ed in. There w as a mi rror thatw as aff ix ed to the door thatw as shat tered on the flo or .” He cont inu ed: “[ I] t a p p e a re d the re had been t hin g s t hrow n abouti n the area of the bat hroo m to w here the do or w as k ic k e d

. I b elieve there w as piece s of , y ou kn ow, just thi ng s l ay ing al l about the flo or there i n tha t area.” Photog ra phs of th e s cene and of F ig ueroa’ s i nju ri es, tak en by D eputy Bi ehunk o,
w ere en tered into evidence . One of t h e p hot ographs, ente red into ev iden ce as Sta te’s
ex hib it10, depi cte d w hat D eputy Bi ehunk o des cr ibe d as a “[ forty]- ounce beer bottl e tha t
w as hal f f ull thatw as used to s tr ik e the v ic ti m.” Dep uty Bi ehunk o tes ti fied that he took that photog ra ph i n the ki tch en of the re si dence and that no one touc hed t he bot tl e betw een t he ti me he f irst saw

it and the ti me the photog ra ph w as tak en. He ack now led g ed, t houg h, t hat he di d not coll ectthe bottl e as ev ide nce, nor did he know w hat happened to the bot tl e after3

he c omplet ed hi s i nv est ig ati on. The Stat e off er ed ins tead, as a demons trati v e ex hib it , a bottl e i denti cal i n s iz e and w eig ht t o the one found in Fi g ueroa’ s resi dence

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , D eputy Bi ehunk o s tated thathe d id not recal l that any of Fi g ueroa’ s c hil dr en had act ual ly been inj ur ed, e v en thoug h the y appeared to hav e bl ood on th em. H e furt her

st ated that the blo od he obs er v ed i nsi de th e resi dence “ appeared to be p retty fresh ” becau se he w as ab le to sm ear it with his shoe an d “three -day old blood is not g oin g to smear .” L a u ra Ce rve n k a , a re gi s t e re d n u rs e a tMa t a go rd a G e n e ra l H o s p it a l i n B a yCi t y, Tex as, at the t ime of the i nci dent, tes tif ied thatsh e w as pr esentat the h ospi tal w hen Fi g ueroa w as broug ht t her e by paramedic s. Ac cordin g to Cer v enka, F ig ueroa “ had a lot of dried bloo d to he r fa cial area. W e kne w she had so me hea d traum a. She w as a little
anx iou s, upset , and st ated she h a d b e e n h it b y a be er bott le. ” C er

v enka tes ti fied th at Fi g ueroa “ had a lacera ti o n t o the l eft frontal l obe of her head, an a br asi on hemat oma to the r ig ht oc ci pit al [l obe] and s he had so m e s wel li ng and ti ss ue c ontus ion to the r ig ht ey eli d.” Fi g ueroa th en to ok the sta nd and t est ified thatsh e i s 2 6 y ears o f age and has three chi ldren. She sta ted t hat s he has kn ow n Vi ll ar re al for a bitmor e tha n ten y ears a nd th at they w er e “ seei ng eac h oth er” at t he ti me of the inc ide nt. Ac cordin g to Fi g ueroa, V il lar re al had c ome to her

mother ’s hous e, whe re s h e l iv ed, o n the ni g ht i n q uest ion

. Fi g ueroa sta ted t hat V il lar re al w as “k ind of u p se t” wh e n he a rr iv ed; s he presumed that thi s w as becau se she w as out w it h fri ends the n ig ht be fore and had not an sw er ed a phone c all from him. Vi lla rre al tol d F ig ueroa th at he di d notbel iev e her st or y aboutw hy

sh e had not
a n swered hi s c all

. The prosec utor then as ked w hen t he arg ument be came v iol ent; Fi g ueroa respon ded: W e w er e i n the b e d ro o m , a n d he had as ked me how many g uy s o r men I had bee n w it h. And I tol d hi m I di dn’ t w ant t o answ er that; and he tol d me, “N o , yo u n e e d t o t e ll m e h o w m a n yg u y s yo u ’ve b e e n wit h

. ” H e — I b e li e ve at t hat t ime w e w er e lay ing dow n. He g ot on top of me, g ra bbed me by the hai r and t old me I had “ ti ll the counto f t h re e t o tel l me” and he sta rt ed count ing and he s tar

ted h it ti ng me .
. . [w]i th hi s fis t. Fi g ueroa s tated that , atso me poi nt, she w as abl e to g et aw ay from Vi ll ar re al and r un i nto4

the b athroom. W hen s he heard her approx imat ely

ei g hteen- month- old s o n c ryi ng , s he
w ent t o g et hi m and t he ot her ch il dr en and brough t th e m to a di ff er ent b athroom i n the
re s i d e n c e
. F i g u e ro a t e s t i fi e d t h a t “ I h a d t o o k t h e k i d s i n t h e r e b e c a u s e I w as sc ar ed [Villarreal] w as going to do som eth ing to them .” Fi gueroa exited th e ba throo m an d to ld Vi ll ar re al to l eav e the resi dence

. She s tated : “I bel iev e he w ent i nto t he ki tch en to g o g et his beer thathe h ad broug ht ov er , and that’s w hen he hitm e w it h the bottle. ” She sta ted that he hit her

“tw o or thre e times” w it h the bott le before “ itsl ipp ed outof his hands ” and onto the flo or
. Fi g ueroa’ s t est imony co nti nued: Q. At w hat p oin t di d y ou tr y to cont actthe pol ic e? A. After I t old hi m to lea v e, w e w er e already outs ide ; and he had as ked me i f I w as g oin g t o s p e ak to hi m after that. An d he tol d me,
“ R em em be r ,” an d he s ai d, “ J us t th i nk ab ou t y ou r an s w er beca use that’ s g oin g to deter mine whether I beat the h ell out of y ou or not. ” An d th en he s ta rte d as k i ng for hi s c el l ph on e, an d I to ld him th at it w as in the restroom thatI had first w ent i nto.

. . . So, w hen he w ent back there, I ra n to g o chec k on my ki ds. I g ra bbed the phone. W hen I ran ba ck there, I called 91 1, an d I ran ba ck. Fi g ueroa not ed th at s he has a on e- inc h s car on h er forehead w her e Vi ll ar re al str uck her
w it h the beer

bott le. Ac cordin g to Fi g ueroa, Vil lar re al tol d her t hat “ [e]v er y ti me y ou l ook in the mi rror

and y ou s ee th at s car , y ou w il l re member me” or “ y ou w il l thi nk about me.” On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , F ig ueroa ac know led g ed th at s he di d notkn ow how or w hen the mirror on the door bet w een the bat hroo m and bedroo m had been shat tered

. Defense
couns el noted that, i n her or ig ina l sta tement to po li ce, F ig ueroa had sta ted t hat V il lar re al threw the bot tle at her, rathe r tha n me rely striking her w ith it. Fig uero a co u ld n o t reca ll
ma king that stat em entto police; nor could she rem em ber w het her Villarreal ha d i n fact throw n the bott le at he r on th e ni g ht i n q uest ion

. At the close of

the evidence , the trial cou rt c h a rged the jury on th ree of fense s: ag g ra v ated ass aul t, as w ell as the les ser i ncl uded offenses of assa ultand deadl y co nduct

. Se e id. § 22 .01 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) ( ass aul t) , r§ 22. 02 ( ag g ra v ated ass aul t) , § 22.05 (V er non 2003) (d eadl y

co nduct ); see als o T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37.08 (V er non 2006) ( “I n a p ro sec uti on for an off ense w it h les ser inc lud ed off enses , the jur y may find th e defendant notgui lt y

of the g re ater

of fense, but gui lt y

of anyless er

incl uded offense.” ), ar

t.5

37. 09 (Ve rnon 200 6) (def ining “l esser includ ed o f fense ”). T h e j u ry charge provided, in pertin entpart, as follows:

Now , i f y ou find from the ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthaton or aboutthe 1stday

of Ma y 2006 in Ma tag orda C ounty , Tex as, the d e f endant, Er ik

Vi ll ar re al, di d the n and there i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly and re ck les sl y

cau se b o dil y

i nju ry to Ar cel i Fi g ueroa, b y hi tti ng her

and the def end antdid the n an d the re u se or e x hibit a dea dly w eap on, to-w it: a g lass bottl e, du ri ng the commi ss ion of sai d as saul t, then y ou w il l find th e defendant g uil ty of Ag g ra v ated Ass aul t as ch arg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Unl ess y ou s o find from the ev ide nce bey ond a reason abl e doubt , or if y ou h ave a reaso nab le dou bt thereof , y ou w ill acquit the def end antof this all eg ati on and say

by y our v erdic t, “n ot g uil ty ” of Ag g ra v ated Ass aul t and next proceed to cons ide r w hether the defen d a n t is gui lt y of the o ff ense of Ass aul t.

. . . . Now , i f y ou find from the ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat on or aboutthe 1stday

of Ma y 2006 in Ma tag orda C ounty , Tex as, the def endant, Er ik

Vi ll ar re al, di d the n and there i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly or recklesslycause bod ily injury to Arceli Fig uero a by hitting he r, th en y ou wi ll find th e defendant g uil ty of the o ff ense of Ass aul t. Unl ess yo u so f ind f ro m the ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubt , or if y ou h ave a reason able dou bt th ereo f , y ou w ill acquit the d ef end antof this all eg ati on and say

by y our v erdic t, “n ot g uilt y” o f Assa ultand next proceed to c onsi der

w hether the defendant i s g uil ty

of the off ense of Dea dly

C onduc t.

. . . . Now , i f y ou f ind from t he ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthaton or aboutthe 1stday

of Ma y 2006 in Ma tag orda C ounty , Tex as, the def end ant , Erik Vill arreal, did then and there reck le s s ly engage in cond uct that p l a c e d A r c e l i F i g u e ro a i n i mm i n e n t d a n g e r o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u ryby hitting her, th en you w ill f ind th e de fend antg uilty of the of fense of Deadly Con duct

. Unl ess y ou s o find from the ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubt , or if y ou hav e a reason abl e doubtthereof, y ou w il l acq uitthe defendant and sa y by y our v erdic t, “n ot g uil ty ” of Deadl y C onduc t. T he jury returne d v erdicts of g uilty as to all three coun ts, de spite th e cha rg e’s admoni ti on to the jur

y not to c onsi der

the tw o l e ss e r in clu d ed offenses u nle ss i t had a
re asona ble doubt as to the ag g ra v ated ass aul t charg e. W hen t he tr ial co urt read al oud t he jur y ’ s v e rd i c t s , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l o bj e c t e d , s t a t i n g t h a t “ t h e r e ’ s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n of conf usion ,” that th e v erdict w as “com prom ised” and that it w as po ten tially not un anim ous.6

Subs eq uentl y , atVi ll ar re al’ s s entenc ing hear ing , t he tr ial co ur t s tated : [ O ] n m y o wn m o t io n , I ’m go in g t o se ta s id e a f in d in g o f t h e ju ry a s t o two les ser findi ng s t hat they

di d notfoll ow

the ins tr uct ion s o f the C our t’ s c harg e; ho w ev er , i n th ei r

d efe ns e, I mu s t s ay

t ha t th e c ha rg e th atw as g i v en b y me coul d hav e been m uch cl ear er as to w hat t o do. There’s no faul t i n the charg e to eit her

co unsel ; i t’ s t he faultof the C our t. The tr ial co urt t hen as se ss e d punish ment atei g ht y ears’ i mpri sonmenton t he ag g ra v ated ass aul t c harg e. This appeal foll ow ed. II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Ev id ent iary

Su ff icien cy By hi s first tw o i ss ues, Vi ll ar re al arg ues t h a t the e v ide nce adduc ed attr ial w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on. In con duct ing a leg al suf f iciency rev iew , w e con sider the ev iden ce in the light mo st fav or abl e to the v erdic t to determi ne w hether anyrati onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e found the
ess enti al el ements of

the cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Sander s v . St ate , 119 S.W .3d 818, 820 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. W e must g iv e deferenc e to “t he re spons ibi li ty of the t ri er of factto fair ly

resol v e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to draw
reaso nab le inferen ces f rom b asic facts to ultim ate facts.” Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8

- 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )

. W e
are no t required to de term ine w het her w e be liev e tha t the e v iden ce at trial e stab lished guilt be y on d a r ea s on ab l e do ub t; r at he r , w he n fac ed w i th c on fl i c ti ng ev i de nc e, w e mu st p re s u m e t h a tt h e t ri e r of fa c t re s o lve d a n y su c h co n f li c tin fa vo r o f t h e p ro s e c u t io n , a n d we must defer t o tha t resol uti on. Sta te v. Turro , 867 S.W .2d 43, 47 (Te x
. Crim. App . 199 3). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e c o n sid e r th e ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 6). Th e v erdict w ill be s et as ide onl y

i f (1) i t i s s o c ontrar

y to the o verw hel ming w eig ht of the ev ide nce as to b e c le a rl y

w ro ng and manifest ly unj ust , or

( 2) i t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. a t 4 1 5 (cit in g Johns on v . St ate , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 1 0 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 0)).T he St at e no t es on app eal t hat t he b ee r bot t l e i nt r oduced as a de m onst r at i v e exh i bi t at t r i al “ was 2 t he s am e bra nd , s i z e an d t ex t ure as t he on e V i l l arrea l us ed ” t o s t ri k e F i gu ero a. A c c ord i ng t o t he S t ate’ s bri ef,

“ [ a] f or t y - ounce O l de E ng l i sh Br and ‘ 800' bee r bot t l e i s a f or t y - ounce O l de Engl i sh Br and ‘ 800' bee r bot t l e. 7 Both leg al and factual suffici ency ar e measured by the ele ments of t he off ense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

correctjur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi

v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f’d)

. Und er

a hy pothet ic a lly c or re ct jur y ch arg e, V il lar re al commi tted the o ff ense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t i f he: ( 1) i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y ca used bodi ly

i nju ry to Fi g ueroa, a nd ( 2) us ed or ex hib it ed a deadl y

w eapon w hil e doi ng so
. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. §§ 22. 01(a )(1), 22 .02 (a)(2). A perso n acts inten tiona lly with resp ect to a result of his conductw hen it is his cons ci ous obj ect iv e to caus e the resul t. Id. § 6. 03( a) ( Ver non 200 3). A perso n acts know ingly w ith respe ct to a result o f his condu ct w hen he is aw are that his co nduct i s re a sonab ly ce rt ain to caus e the resul t. Id. § 6. 03( b)

. A person act s reckless ly wit h r e s p e ct to a result o f his condu ct w hen he is aw are of but con sciously dis re g ards a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk thatthe re sul t w il l occ ur
. Id. § 6.03 (c). Vi ll ar re al arg ues spec ific all y that the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to est abl is h that he act ed w it h the req uis it e i ntent , i n par t bec ause “[ Fi g ueroa] d id not remember and nev er sai d w her e [V il lar re al] al leg edl y hi t her w it h thi s b ottl e, t he bot tl e tha t w a s n ev er ente re d into e v iden ce.” W e disagree. T he reco rd ref le c t s t h a t , w hile Figueroa did n ot explicitly sta te t hat V il lar re al str uck her in the f or ehead w it h the beer bottl e, s he di d tes ti fy that the atta ck cause d he r to start bleeding; tha t the scar on her foreh ead cam e abo ut as a result of t he attac k; and that Vi ll ar re al v er bal ly threatened her

before and after

the attac k. See Tucker v. Sta te , 2 7 4 S. W .3 d 68 8 , 6 9 1 -9 2 (T e x. Crim . Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ) (ci ti n g Mo ra les v. Sta te , 633 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 68- 69 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1982)) (“ [T]he inj ur ies suff er ed bythe v ic ti m can by the msel v es b e a s uffi c i en t ba s i s for i nfe r r i ng t ha t a de ad l y w ea po n w as u s ed .” ). Mo re ov er , t o obt ain a c onv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated ass aul t by deadl y w eapon, the S tate w as under no o bli g ati on to i ntro d u ce i n to ev ide nce the a ctu al w eapon a ll eg edl y us ed by the defendant. See Banar gent v. State , 228 S.W .3d 3 93, 3 99 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2O n e i s th e s a m e a s a n o th e r, w h e th e r i t i s u s e d fo r d rin k i n g o r b a s h i n g .” Vi l l ar r eal di d not ar gue, at t r i al or on appea l , t hat t he beer bot t l e sho ul d no t hav e be en co nsi der ed 3 a “d e a d l y w e a p o n ” u n d e r th e s ta tu to ry d e fin i ti o n
. See T EX

. P EN AL C OD E

. A NN

. § 1. 07( a) ( 17) ( B) ( Ver non Supp. 2009) ( def i ni ng “ deadl y weapon ” as “ any t hi ng t hat i n t he m annerof i t s use or i nt ended use i s capa bl e of c au s i ng de ath or s eri ou s bo di l y i njury ”)

. 8 2 0 0 7 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Mo ra les , 633 S.W .2d at 868). Here, the jury could ha v e ration ally 3
conc lud ed from a ll the ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial thatVi ll ar re al posse ss ed th e req uis it e int ent t o s ust ain a c onv ic ti on of ag g ra v ated ass aul t. See Gro tti v. Sta te , 273 S. W .3d 2 73, 2 8 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (ci ti n g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5) ; Ma nr iqu e v . St ate , 994 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 49 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ( “A j ur y may i nfer i ntentfrom any

facts w hic h ten d to prov e i ts ex is tenc e, i ncl udi ng the acts, w ords, and condu ct of the ac cus ed, a nd th e
me tho d of

comm itting the crime a nd f rom th e na ture of w oun ds inf licted on the victims.”). In arg uin g thatthe ev ide nce w as factual ly i nsuffici ent, Vi ll ar re al cont ends that Fi g ueroa’ s t est imony“ w as used to c ov er the fact th at F ig ueroa i nit iat ed th is se x ual
re lat ion shi p that nig ht an d the n att empted t o s w ay the tes ti mony

i n a w ay thati t app ear ed [Vi ll ar re al] w as upset w it h her .” He arg ues that “n one of t he phy si cal evid e n ce su ppor ts Fig uero a’s allegation s” and tha t “[t]he re w as not hing prese nte d to the jury which
cor ro borates Fi g ueroa’ s acc ount of w hat o cc ur re d.” Ag ain , w e di sag re e. The tes ti mony
a n d p h o t o g r a p h s o f D e p u t y B i e h u n k o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an i n c i d e n tt o o kp l a c e w h i c h l e ft Fi g ueroa and her

chil dr en f ri g htened and bloodi ed. Ev en i f Fi g ueroa’ s t ri al tes ti mony w as the o nly ev ide nce suppo rt ing conv ic ti on, w e may not subs ti tute our ow n det er minat ion for that of the j ur

y
. See Or

ti z v. Sta te , 93 S.W .3d 7 9, 87 -8 8 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( ci ti ng W esbr ook v. State , 29 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 20 0 0 )). W e are notper mitt ed to “ subs tanti all y

i ntr ude upo n the j ur

y ’s role as the sol e j udg e of the w eig ht an d c re dib il it y of w itness te stimo ny.” Id. Defer ri ng to the j ur

y ’s dete rmi nati on as to Fi gueroa’ s t ru thfulnes s, see Turro , 867 S.W .2d a t 47, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce w as le gal ly s u f f ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he
conv ic ti on. Addi ti onal ly , w e c oncl ude t hat t he j ur y ’s v erdic t w as not “ ag ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce” or “so contrar y to the ov er

w hel ming w eig ht of9

the evidence as to be clearly w rong and m anif estly unju st.” See Watson , 204 S.W .3d a t 4 1 4 -1 5 (cit in g Johns on , 23 S.W .3d at 10). The ev ide nce w as therefore fact ual ly su ff ic ien t to s uppor

t t he c onv ic ti on. Vi ll ar re al’ s first and s econd i ss ues ar e ov er ru led

. B. Fo rm of

Ju ry Ver di ct By hi s t hird and fourth is sues , Vil lar re al arg ues that the tr ial courterr ed by“ faili ng t o reje c t ” t h e ju ry’ s ve rd ic t a s t o a ll t h re e c o u n t s in c lu d e d in t h e ju ry c h a rg e
. Sp e c if ic a ll y, by his third issue, Villarreal conte nds th at “the trial cou rt’s act ion in failing to reject the jury’s
v erdic t amount ed to an ins tr uct ed v erdic t of gu il ty or co nst it uted a c omment on the w eig ht of the ev ide nce. ” By

hi s four th i ss ue, Vil lar re al arg ues that the j ur y ’s v erdic t “ all ow ed th e jur y to conv ic t [ him] of three s eparate o ff enses w hic h c re ated a non- unani mous v erdic t.” The s e arg um en ts a r e w i th ou t me r i t. A l th ou g h th e j ur y v i ol at ed t he t r i al c ourt’s ins tr uct ion s b y

retur nin g g uil ty

v erdic ts on al l three c harg ed c ounts , t he tr ial co urt t ook the appropr iat e ac ti on to r e medy the defect by

se tti ng as ide the v erdic ts on th e tw o l ess er inc lud ed offenses. See Oc h o a v. State , 982 S.W .2d 9 04, 9 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) (holdin g, w here app ellantw as con v icted o f bot h aggravated se x ual assa ult an d inde cency
w it h a chi ld, a les ser inc lud ed offense, t hat “ [t] he proper remedy i s t o reform the j udg ment by v acat ing the les ser

co nv ic ti on and sent ence” ); Ran gel v. Sta te , 1 7 9 S

. W

. 3 d 6 4 , 6 7 (T e x. App .– Sa n Ant oni o 2005, pet. ref’d) ( hol din g , w her e appel lan t w as conv ic ted o f both burgla ry of a habi tati on and ag g ra v ated ass aul t, a l ess er i ncl uded offense, t hat “ [t] he app ropriate reme dy for any doub le jeop ardy v iolation is to v acat e one of the con v ictions”); W hitti ngton v. State , 781 S.W .2d 3 38, 3 40 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 198 9, pe t. re f’d) (holdin g, w here app ellantw as con v icted o f both agg rav ate d sexual assau lt and indece ncy
w ith a c h ild, a l ess er

i ncl uded offense, t hat t he tr ial co urt “ w as cor re ct in conc lud ing that the jur y found appel lan t g uil ty

[onl y ] of the g re ater

offense” ); see als o Gi

bson v. State , N o. 06- 07- 00200- CR , 200 8 Tex . App. LE X IS 4 915, at * 3- 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana Jul y 2, 2008, pet. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publica ti o n ) (h old ing that“ the t ri al cour t w as
cor re ct in acc epti ng the jur y ’s v erdic t for burg lar

y and ig nor ing or

di smi ss ing i ts conv ic ti onT hi s i s not , as Vi l l ar r eal suggest s, a si t uat i on wher e som e j ur or s m ay hav e v ot ed t o con v i ct on one 4 c o u n t w h e re a s o th e r j u ro rs v o te d to c o n v i c t o n o th e r c o u n ts

. In s te a d , a ll th e ju ro rs w e re in a g re e m e n t a s to a ll coun t s. T he f act t hat t he j ur y ’ s v er di ct s as t o t he t wo l esser i ncl uded off enses wer e l at er v acat ed b y t he tri a l c o u rt d o e s n o t c h a n g e th i s fu n d a m e n ta l fa c t. 10 for agg rav ate d assa ult,” a lesser includ ed o f fense ). Beca u s e t he trial cou rt took th is app ropriate rem e d ia l a c t io n, Villarreal can notshow tha t he ha s suf fered any harm as a
re sul t of the jur

y ’s i mprop er

v erdic t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2. Add itiona lly , the re is no supp ort in the record fo r Villarreal’s cont ent ion th at th e jury ’s
v erdic t may

hav e been non- unani mous. The tr ial cour t ins tr uct ed the jur

y thati t mus t be unani mous i n order

to re tur n a g uil ty

v e rd ict o n eac h par

ti cul ar co unt. Ther efore, by
re tur nin g three g uil ty

v erdic ts, the jur

y indi cat ed that it w as unani mous t hat t he el ements of each of the three crim es had bee n proven be y ond a reason able dou bt. Had th e jury f ully
com plied wi th th e instructio ns giv en to it, then it w ould h ave fo und Villarreal g uilty of only the g re ater

offense and i t w ould n o t h av e c onsi der ed th e l ess er i ncl uded offenses. See W hitti ngton , 781 S.W .2d a t 340 (“ It is ax iomat icthata j ur y v erdic t nee d notbe c onsi ste nt if one is tal ki ng abouta mul ti -c ount v erdic t, becau se in that ins tanc e eac h c ount of the charg ing i nst ru ment is co nsi der ed s eparatel y , and a g uil ty v erdic t upo n any

co unt may st a n d , pro vide d th a t it is su p p o rt e d by th e evid e n ce .” ) (ci ti n g United S tate s v. Varkonyi , 611 F.2d 84, 86 (5th Cir. 1980 )). 4 Vi ll ar re al’ s t hird and fourth is sues are ov er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________ _________

______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 13th day of Ma y , 201 0.