Opinion filed February 5, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00355-CR

__________

JOHNNY RAY DIAZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Coleman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2481

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Johnny Ray Diaz appeals his jury conviction for the offense of retaliation. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06 (West 2011). The trial court assessed 

Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice for a term of six years. In two issues on appeal, 
2

Appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to sustain 

his conviction. We affirm.

Background Facts

The grand jury charged Appellant by indictment with retaliation and alleged 

that Appellant intentionally or knowingly threatened to harm Les Cogdill, who was

a deputy with the Coleman County Sheriff’s Office. Appellant pleaded “not 

guilty” to the charged offense, and the case proceeded to trial.

Deputy Cogdill testified that, on September 29, 2012, he was the primary 

call unit and responded to a domestic disturbance call around 1:30 a.m. Santa 

Anna Police Officer Maurice “Reece” Shaffer met him at the residence. 

Deputy Cogdill stated that he made contact with Patricia Diaz and saw that she had 

a knot above her left eye. Deputy Cogdill learned that Patricia’s brother, 

Appellant, had assaulted her. Appellant had already left the scene by the time the 

officers arrived. After he spoke with Patricia, Deputy Cogdill notified Deputy 

Archie Lancaster on the radio and drove around the area looking for Appellant. 

Deputy Cogdill stated that he saw someone walking on the sidewalk. He then

notified Officer Shaffer and Deputy Lancaster of the person’s location.

Officer Shaffer stated that he got out of his vehicle and saw Appellant

running toward him. He testified that he drew his Taser and ordered him to stop. 

Deputy Lancaster said that he detained Appellant. Deputy Cogdill testified that he 

started to pat down Appellant and that Appellant attempted to head-butt him twice 

and threatened to beat him. Appellant, for a third time, attempted to head-butt 

Deputy Cogdill. As the officers were placing Appellant into Officer Shaffer’s 

patrol car, Deputy Cogdill testified that Appellant threatened to kill him. Both 

Officer Shaffer and Deputy Lancaster stated that Appellant threatened to kill 

Deputy Cogdill. Officer Shaffer testified that Appellant repeatedly threatened to 

kill Deputy Cogdill while Appellant was in the patrol car. Appellant was taken 
3

into custody and subsequently indicted for retaliation against Deputy Cogdill. 

Deputy Cogdill testified that he had no prior encounters with Appellant and did not 

know him outside this one incident.

Appellant testified that he threatened to beat up Deputy Cogdill if the 

officers removed his handcuffs. Appellant also stated that he did not have any 

personal problems with Deputy Cogdill or any prior relationship with him before 

the evening of the incident.

Appellant was ultimately convicted of retaliation against Deputy Cogdill. 

After the jury reached a guilty verdict, the State and Appellant agreed to a term of 

six years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice.

Analysis

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard 

of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Brooks v. 

State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 

286, 288–89 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Since Brooks, appellate 

courts look at factual sufficiency and legal sufficiency under the same standard of 

review. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 912. Under that standard, we examine all of the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on 

that evidence and any reasonable inferences from it, any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010). 

A person commits the offense of retaliation if the person intentionally or 

knowingly harms or threatens to harm another in retaliation for or on account of 

the service or status of another as a public servant. PENAL § 36.06. Deputy

Cogdill, Deputy Lancaster, and Officer Shaffer all testified that they heard 
4

Appellant threaten to kill Deputy Cogdill; he made the threats when he was placed 

into the police car. Officer Shaffer stated that Appellant made repeated threats 

against Deputy Cogdill while he was in custody. Appellant testified that he did 

threaten to beat up Deputy Cogdill. Appellant and Deputy Cogdill had no 

relationship prior to the incident.

The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the 

weight to be given their testimony, and it is also the exclusive province of the jury 

to reconcile conflicts in the evidence. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting 

evidence in favor of the verdict and defer to the trial court’s judgment. Clayton v. 

State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We hold that a rational trier 

of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the 

offense of retaliation. Appellant’s issues on appeal are overruled.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

JOHN M. BAILEY 

JUSTICE

February 5, 2015

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.