### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00705-CR

Will iam A. La mpe, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 4 OF

TRAVI S COUNTY NO. 554300, H ONORABLE MIKE DENTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

Fo llowing a b en ch t r ial, t he co ur t ad jud ge d a pp ell a nt W

i l l i am A . La m pegui l ty of as sa ul t, as se ss ed

pun i sh men t at i nc arc era ti on for one year a nd

a $ 100 0 f i ne , an d pl ac ed appe l l an t on com m un i ty supe rvision. SeeTex. Pen. Code An n. § 2 2. 01( a) (1 ) ( West Su pp. 200 1) . Ap pellant chal le ngesthe le gal

and f actual suf fi ci ency of t he evide nce t o s ust ain the guilt y verd ict. We find the ev ide nc e t o be su fficie nt an d a ffirm.

The compl

ai nan t was Mary

Opp, appell

ant’s f ormer wi fe. She t est ifi

ed t hat she a nd app ellant h ad

ar ra n ge d to m

eet i n th e p ar ki n g l ot of an A usti n re sta ur an t so th at appel lan t co uld return t heir t hre e childr en fo llowing a visit at ion. Appe llantand the ch il dren arri ve d al most two hours la te. Af ter Opp placed the ch

il dren i n he rcar, appell

ant asked to say goodby

e to t hem . Opp testifi

ed, “I t o ld h im he h ad mo r e t ha n a n ho ur an d 4 5 min ut es t o sa y go o db ye t o t he m. And I to ld h im that we werej us t goi

n g to go , a nd he ha d t he do ll i n his hand a nd he s wung it ar ou nd and hit me in t he face with i t, and threw it i

n the car.”2 Ap pe llant an d h is girlfriend , w ho wa s w it h him a t t he t ime, als o t es t ified . Bo t h sa id that the doll

bel onged to appell ant’s y

oungest daughter, but t hat when he tried to give it t o O pp, she angr ily re fused t o t ake it. Appe llantthen tossed t he do ll i nt o O pp’ s ca r. Appe llant d enied s t riking Op p w it h t he do ll.

The informat ion ac cus ed a ppe llantof int ent ionally, kno wingly, o r r eck lessly caus ing bo dily i n j ur y to Op p. Th e c our

t ex pr es sl y f oun d th at ap pe ll an t co mmit t ed t he o ffe ns e r ec kl es sly. Appe llantar gue s t hat if

the c ourt bel

ie ved Opp’s

testim ony, h e was compe ll

ed to co ncl

ude that app ellant ac te d in

tentional ly or knowingl

y;if he b elie ved appel la nt’s testim

ony, n o assaul t was comm itted. Appel

la nt contends that because there was no ev i denc e on wh i ch to base a f i nd i ng of recklessness , t he ev ide nc e is l eg al l y i n suf f i ci en t to s ustai n th e c our t’s v erdi ct. Alter nat ively, app ellant as se rtsthat t he f

in din g of recklessness

is so co nt ra ry t o t he o ver whelming weight of t he evi dence as to b e c l ea rl y un j ust. Ass au lt i s a “

resu l t of con duct” of f en se. Fuller

v. State , 819 S.W.2d 254, 256 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

1991, pet. r ef’ d). From the evi dence in this cause, a rational

t rier of fac t co uld find beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat altho ugh a ppe llantmay have intent ionally or kno wingly str uck t he co mplainant wit h t he do ll, h e c o nsc io us ly dis r eg ar de d a su bst an t ial a ndun jus t ifiab le r isk t ha t his conduct wo uld res ul

t i n b odi l y i n j ur y . We th eref oreh old th

at th e ev i den ce

i s l eg al l y suf f i ci en t to su st ain the f

i ndi ng th at appe l l an

t reckl ess l y caus ed b odi l

y i nj ury to the com

plai na nt. SeeJackson v. Virgin ia , 443 U.S . 30 7, 3 24 ( 197 9); Griffin v. State , 61 4 S.W.2d 155, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). And gi

vi ng the f act fi nder’s v erdict the def

erence i t is due, we cann

ot say tha t a c onv i cti on3

f orrecklessas sa ult i s cl

earl y wrong or ma ni f estl y unjust. See Joh nson v. Sta te , 2 3 S .W. 3d 1 , 9 (T ex. Crim. App. 200 0); Reina v. State , 940 S.W .2d 770 , 773 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 97, pet. ref

’d). Appellant’s points of e

rror ar e overruled

an d the j udg men t of con vi cti on is aff irm ed.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: October 25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h