1 W h en a g l ob al cl ai m of i n suf f i ci en t ev i den ce i s m ade a n d, as h ere, appe l l an

t cites n o au th ori ty and doesnot state the stan dard o f r ev iew fo reit he rleg al o rfac t ua l su fficie nc y, w e n ee d o nly det er mine wh ethe r the e vi den ce is legal l y suf f i cien t to support the c onv

i cti on. See Mart

inets v . State , 884 S. W.2d 185 , 18 9 (T ex. App .—Au st in 1994, no p et .) ; Boatw right v. St ate , 933 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 1996 , no pet.). 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00809-CR
Rober t Kendall Clar k, Appel lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 5 OF

TRAVI S COUNTY NO. 526-147, HO NORABLE GI SELA D. T RIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury fou nd

app ellant Rob er

t Cl ar k g ui l ty of th e of f ense of mak i n g a ter rori sti c th re at. See Tex . Penal

Code A nn . § 22.07(We st 1994 ). The tria l courtasse ssed app ellant’ s pu nishment at co nfinementin

the county j ai l f

or nin ety day s and a f in e of $500. On appeal, appell ant asserts that th e ev i den ce

i s n ot s uf f i ci en t to s uppor

t th e j ur y ’s v erdi ct. W e wi l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t. Appe llantmakes a

glo bal claim: “The ev

i de nc e i s i ns uf f i ci en t to con vi ct a ppe l l an t f or t he off en se of terrori sti c thre at.” 1 In

reviewi ng a l egal suf fi ci ency chal le nge, we vi

ew the evi

dence in the l i gh t most f av orabl e to the p ros ecution

and determi

ne wh ether an y ra t io na l t r ier o f fac t co uld have f ound th e es sen tia l elem en ts of th e cri me b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Jacks on v. Vir ginia , 4432

U.S. 307, 319 (19 79) ; Johnso n v. State , 23 S.W.3d1, 7 (T ex. Cr im . App . 20 00) ; Patric k v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 486 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 199 5); Geesa

v. State , 82 0 S
. W. 2d 15 4, 16 7 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1991 ). The stat ute under w hich appell ant was charged in pertinen t par t pr ovides: (a) A pe r so n c o mmit s a n o ffen se if he t hr ea t en s t o co mmit a ny offense invo lving vi ol en ceto an y pe rs on . . . w i

th i nte nt to:

. . . . (2) pl ace an y pers on i n f ear of i m m i nent se ri ous b odi l

y i nj ury ; . . .

. . . . (b) An off en se u nde r Sub di vision . . . (2) of

Sub section

(a) i s a c l ass

B m i sdemean or. T ex . Pe na l Co de Ann
. § 2 2. 07 ( a) ( 2) , ( b) ( We st 19 94 )
. “S er io us bo dily i nj ury ” m eans b odi l y i nj ury that crea tes a s ub sta n ti al ri sk of de ath or th at c au se s dea

th, seriouspe rm

an en t di sf i gur em en t, or protracted l

oss or i m pai rmen t of the f unc tion of a ny bodi l y mem ber or organ . Id . § 1. 07( 46) . T he Sta te alle ged that appell

ant in tentional ly pla ced Ber t ha Sern a i n f ear of i m m i nent se ri ous b odi l

y i nj ury by threa teni ng to us e dea

dl y f orce ag ai nst her. On March 24, 1999, the day of the all eged offense, Bertha Serna was S tat e Rep re sent at iveTer ry Keel’ s secret ary. At abo ut 11:3 0 a.m., appellant enter ed Repr esentat ive K eel’s off ic e in the S t at e Ca pit ol Annex. Appe llant ap pr oa ched t he de sk o f the receptioni st, Jenni fer Ree d. Ser na re co gnized app ellant, who had visit ed t he office a ppr oximat ely twe nt y times bet wee n Apr il and October 199 8, and g re et ed a ppe llant by name. Appe llant wa lked u p t o S er na an d t o ld her he wanted his t wo t ape s t hat he had left in t he o ffi ce. Ser na und er st oo d ap pellant ’s r efer ence t o t he t ape s. S er na3

tol d appella nt that he would n

eed to co me

back to the of f i cebe ca us e the of f i ceman ag er, wi th w hom app ellant had de alt pr evio us ly co nce rn ing t he t ap es , w as o ut o f t he o ffice t emp o ra rily. App ellan t left the off ic e. On ly

a m in ute or two l ater, appella

nt “stormed” b ack i

nto t he off

ic e. Thi s tim

e he was
an gr y, ext re mely agitat ed, and a ct ing“errat ic.” Appellan t we nt direct ly

to Serna’s des k and st anding
over her and l ooking straigh

t at her, he angrily

shouted, “I’ll res ort to de ad l y f orc e i f I hav e to, to o bt ain those ta

pes. . . I’ll

resort to deadl

y f orce, and if

you don’t thi

nk I am seri ous, t ake a look at thi s.”Ap pe llant ha d o ne ha nd be hind his b o dy a nd wit h t he o t he rflas he d s o me t hin g i n h i s w al l et. Serna, afrai

d appella nt was about to carry out hi s threat, kept a watch f or any m ovem en t fro m appellant’s co ncea led hand and d id no t see what app ellant ha d in his wallet . Ap pellant left t he off ic e st at ingh e w oul

d b e b ack i

n f i f tee n or tw en ty m i n ute s to get h istapes. Serna and Ree d were fri ghtened, an

d Se rna c al l ed Ca pi tol Security . Two officer s re spo nded . Aft er inter viewing S er na and Reed , t he o ffi

cer s wa ited ou t side o f the office fo r t he ap pellant t o r et ur n. S oo n, a man fitt ing appellant’s des cri

pti on ap proach ed th e of f i ce. The off

ic er s pr event ed t he man fro m ente ring t he office. Afte r he sho wed t he o ffi cer s his ident ifi

cat ion, appe l l an

t v ol un tar i l y ac com pa n i ed th em to a se cu ri ty o ffice
. Ap pe llant sa id h e h ad left his t ape s wit h Ser na and he b la me d her f or t hei r loss. He t o ld t he o ffic er s t ha t he wo ul d u se wh at ev er fo r ce wa s n ec es sa ry t o r ec o ve rhis lo st pr o pe r t y.

Appe llantargues that the evidence is insufficient bec aus e his t hre at was not imm inent and was co ndi

tioned on the return of h

is tapes, and becaus e hi s threat, if directed at any

one, was directed at the off

ic e m anager, not at Serna.4 T his o ffen se r eq uir es t ha t an ac cu se d h av e t he sp ec ific i nte nt to p l ac e a

ny pe rs on in fear of i m m i nent se ri ous b odi l

y i nj ury . Dues v. State , 634 S.W .2d 304 , 305 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1982 ); Bryant v. State , 905 S.W.2d 457, 459 ( Tex. App.—W aco 199 5, p et . r ef’d); Hadnot v. St ate , 884 S.W.2d 922, 92 5 (Tex . App.—Be aum ont 1994 , no pet.). A

pers on ac ts i n ten ti on al l y , or w i th i n ten t, wi th re sp ec t to the n

atu reof h i s c on du ct or t o a resu lt of h is conduct when i

t is h is conscious objec t iveor desire to engage i n the conduct or cau se th e res ult. Tex. Penal Code Ann . § 6.03(a) (Wes t 199 4) . I nt ent can be inferre d fro m the acts, words, and conduct o f the ac cused. Dues , 634 S.W.2d at 305 ; Potee t v. State , 95 7 S .W .2d 16 5, 1 67 (Tex . A

pp .—F ort W

orth 199 7, no pet .) ; Cook
v. State , 940 S.W.2d 344, 34 7 (Tex . Ap p.—A mari l l o 19 97 , pe

t. re f ’d ). Th e accus ed ’s

i n ten t, however, ca nno t be de t er mined so lely fr o m wh at t he vic t im belie ve d a t t he t ime of the of f en se. Dues , 634 S. W.2d at 305 ; George v. State , 841 S.W .2d

544 , 54 6 (T ex . A

pp. —H ous ton

[1st Dist.] 1992 ), aff ’d, 89 0 S
. W. 2d 73 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1994). It is i mm aterial whether appel

la nt had the ab i l i ty or ca pa b i l i ty of carry in g out his thre at. Dues , 63 4 S. W.2d at 305 ; Jarr ell v. State , 537 S.W.2d 255, 257 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 76) ; George , 841 S.W.2d at 547.

For t his o ffen se t o be co mple t e, it is no t ne ce ss ar y t ha t t he vic t im o ran yo ne els e is
ac t ua lly place d i n f ear of i m m i nent se ri ous b odi l

y i nj ury . Dues , 6 34 S .W. 2d 3 05; Ge orge , 841 S.W .2d at 5 46 . F or th

i s of f ense to be com pl ete, i t is onl y ne ces sary

th at th e accus ed , by

h i s th re at, so ught as a d es ire d r ea ct io n t ha t a p er so n be pla ce d in f ear of i m m i nent se ri ous b odi l

y i nj ury . Dues , 634 S. W.2d at 305 ; Jarr

ell , 53 7 S. W.2d at 257 ; George , 841 S.W.2d at 546. We canno t agr ee t hat t he evide nce s upp or t s ap pellant ’s ar gument that his threat was
co nd it io na l, no t imminen t , an d n o t dir ec t ed t o wa r d S er na . Vie we d in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he5

pr os ecu t ion, t he jur y cou ld re aso nably fi nd t hat evidenc e o f app ellant’ s ang er , a ggr essive a ct ion, and t he word s h e us ed w er e inte nded t o p lace S er na in fear of immi nent ser iou s bo dily i

njury. We concl ude t he evide nce is leg ally suffi cient t o s upp or t t he j ury ’s ve rdi ct. A ppe l l an t’s poi nt of er r o ris overruled. The j udgme nt is aff irm ed.

Carl

E. F. Dall

y, Jus tice Be fo r e J us t ice s Kid d, Pa t t er so n a nd Da lly * Af fi rmed File d: June 29, 2001 Do No t Publis

h6 * Bef ore Carl E. F. Da l l y , Judg e (reti

red), C ourt of Cr

i m i na l Appeal s, si ttin g by ass i gnm en t. See Tex . Gov’ t Code A

nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).