AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 9, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00637-CR 

RICHARD RAY PENCE, II, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 072811 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Appellant Richard Ray Pence, II appeals his conviction for the murder of his 

wife Pamela Pence. In a single issue, appellant contends that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction and, specifically, to prove that he (1) 

intentionally or knowingly caused Pamela’s death, (2) intended to cause serious 

bodily injury, or (3) committed an act clearly dangerous to human life. We affirm 

the trial court’s judgment. 
 –2– 

Background 

Appellant was charged by indictment with Pamela’s murder in alternative 

paragraphs. The paragraphs, which tracked Texas Penal Code section 19.02, alleged 

that appellant did: 

(1) intentionally and knowingly cause the death of . . . Pamela . . . 

by hitting or striking her body, head, or face with his hand, foot, 

or other object unknown to the Grand Jury; 

(2) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to . . . Pamela . . ., 

commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the 

death of [Pamela] by hitting or striking her body, head, or face 

with his hand, foot or other object unknown to the Grand Jury; 

or 

(3) commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human 

life, namely hitting or striking Pamela . . . in her body, head, or 

face with his hand, foot, or other object unknown to the Grand 

Jury, that caused the death of Pamela . . ., and [appellant] was 

then and there in the course of committing a felony, namely 

Assault Causing Bodily Injury Family Violence with Previous 

Conviction, and the death of [Pamela] was caused while 

[appellant] was in the course of and in furtherance of the 

commission or attempt of the felony. 

Appellant pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury. 

The evidence at trial showed that the Pences lived in Southmayd, Grayson 

County. Between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. the morning of September 26, 2020, a 

neighbor, Jose Venegas, observed the Pences arguing. Venegas saw Pamela walk 

back into her house carefully, like something hurt. Venegas then heard “banging the 

walls and all.” At approximately 8:30 a.m., another neighbor, Arthur Newton, heard 

a woman’s voice, which he thought came from the Pences’ house, saying “No. No. 
 –3– 

No. Don’t. Stop.” Both Venegas and Newton had overheard “a lot” of arguments at 

the Pences’ house. This argument was different, according to Newton, because it 

appeared to be “short and done.” 

Around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., Ricky Pence, III, the Pences’ adult son, arrived 

to help appellant move some “stuff.” Appellant met him at the back door, and they 

talked outside for a couple of hours. Appellant stopped Ricky from entering the 

house and seemed “kind of off.” Appellant subsequently entered the house and, 

when he returned, told Ricky he thought Pamela was dead. 

Ricky entered the house and found Pamela lying on the kitchen floor. 

Appellant told Ricky that he did not want to go back to jail and asked Ricky to kill 

him. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent Ricky from calling 9-1-1. Appellant 

could be heard apologizing to Ricky in the background of the 9-1-1 recording. 

Appellant then left in his truck. 

Grayson County Trooper Michael Landeros, the first peace officer at the 

scene, testified that the house was disheveled and Pamela had been “brutally 

assaulted.” Pottsboro Police Officer Steve Northington, the second to arrive, 

testified that Pamela’s face was “pretty distorted” and it appeared that there was 

“some kind of homicidal-type violence.” 

Pottsboro Police Officer Travis Looney initiated the investigation at the 

Pences’ house and observed holes in walls, busted sheetrock on the floor, and 

damage to the underside of a bar top like someone had kicked it. There were bloody 
 –4– 

napkins everywhere, blood splatter on lower cabinets, and blood droplets on the 

floor. Pamela’s face was unrecognizable; she was heavily swollen and looked as if 

she had been hit by a car or a train. Brad Oliver, a Ranger with the Texas Department 

of Public Safety, took over the investigation. Based on his observation of Pamela’s 

injuries, he believed that she “died a horrible death from blunt force trauma, . . . 

multiple blunt force trauma injuries to her body, from her head to her toes.” 

Peace officers located appellant driving north on U.S. Highway 75 and pulled 

him over. During transport to the police station, appellant stated, “it’s not supposed 

to happen; it wasn’t intentional.” 

Prior to his arrest, appellant phoned both a co-worker, Michael Spearman, and 

his employer, Dwayne Hicks. Appellant told Spearman, “[I]t’s bad” and that he was 

“going to prison.” Appellant explained that he had gotten into a fight with Pamela, 

it got physical, and Pamela was dead. Appellant told Hicks that he would not be at 

work on Monday and that “she’s dead,” she would not “shut up,” he choked her, and 

he “didn’t mean to do it.” Appellant also called Ricky while Ricky was speaking 

with Trooper Landeros; Landeros overheard appellant apologize. 

Dr. Stephen Lenfest, a Dallas County medical examiner, performed an 

autopsy on Pamela. The autopsy revealed a number of injuries consistent with recent 

blunt force impacts. Those injuries included bruises scattered over the left side of 

Pamela’s head, all over the right side of her head, on her right eye and cheek, and on 

her left ear. The right side of her face was swollen. Her scalp was detached from 
 –5– 

her skull. There were contusions to her brain and swelling and bleeding in the soft 

tissue of both sides of the brain. There were abrasions on Pamela’s forehead and the 

left side of her face and head. There were lacerations to her nose, upper lip, the 

inside of her lips, and on her gums. Her tongue was bruised, consistent with being 

struck in the face or biting the tongue. According to Dr. Lenfest, there were multiple 

impact points on Pamela’s head. 

Pamela’s wrists, left hand, arms, thighs, and lower legs were bruised. There 

were abrasions to her knees and bruising and swelling on her right ankle and foot. 

Her right shoulder was dislocated. There were contusions to both collar bones and 

her left lung. Her spleen was lacerated; the impact had been hard enough to break 

tissue inside the spleen while the spleen remained intact. She suffered fractures to 

the right second and sixth through eighth ribs and left sixth through tenth ribs. Her 

eighth and ninth left ribs punctured her chest cavity. Dr. Lenfest testified that the 

cumulation of all of the blunt force injuries to Pamela caused her death. 

Dr. Lenfest testified that Pamela was approximately five feet tall and weighed 

ninety-one pounds. Appellant weighed 250 pounds and stood five feet, ten inches 

tall when he was booked into jail. 

Ricky testified that his parents frequently argued, both verbally and 

physically, for as long as he could remember. Both appellant and Pamela instigated 

arguments, and alcohol was typically involved. Only appellant, however, was 

physical, and Ricky had observed appellant strike, push, and kick Pamela. 
 –6– 

Pamela’s niece, Jennifer Hulette, testified to a 2006 incident when appellant 

elbowed Pamela in the stomach and knocked her into some bushes. Another time, 

Pamela arrived at Jennifer’s house in a wrist brace and asked if she could stay. Police 

officer Jason Lurkins and Detective Troy Short testified that they had investigated 

appellant for domestic violence in 2003 and 2006, respectively. As a result of those 

investigations, appellant was convicted of several offenses. 

After hearing the evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of murder and 

assessed punishment at confinement for life. The trial court entered a judgment of 

conviction on the jury’s verdict. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which the 

trial court denied, and this appeal followed. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we 

consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, any rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Isassi v. 

State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We measure the sufficiency of 

the evidence by the elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically correct 

jury charge for the case. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997). A hypothetically correct jury charge is “one that accurately sets out the law, 

is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden 
 –7– 

of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately 

describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id. 

When conducting a legal sufficiency review, we consider all evidence in the 

record regardless of whether it was properly or improperly admitted. Clayton v. 

State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to the factfinder to 

resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences 

from basic to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; see also Merritt v. State, 368 

S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638. The factfinder 

may choose to believe or disbelieve any part of any witness’s testimony. Wyatt v. 

State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). “When the record supports 

conflicting inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor 

of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination.” Clayton, 235 S.W.3d 

at 778. 

A criminal conviction may be supported by both direct and circumstantial 

evidence as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. 

Id. “Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the 

guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish 

guilt.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

A person commits murder if he: 

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; 
 –8– 

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly 

dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; 

or 

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than 

manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the 

commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the 

commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act 

clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an 

individual. 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b). “Murder is a ‘result of conduct’ offense, which 

means that the culpable mental state relates to the result of the conduct, i.e., the 

causing of the death.” Schroeder v. State, 123 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2003); see also Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377, 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) 

(citing Lugo-Lugo v. State, 650 S.W.2d 72, 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (op. on reh’g) 

(noting the statute “focuses the mental state of the individual on the particular result 

and not on the conduct that causes death”)). 

 A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it is 

his conscious objective or desire to cause the result. TEX. PENAL CODE § 6.03(a). A 

person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that 

his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Id. § 6.03(b). The test for 

determining whether an act is clearly dangerous to human life is an objective one. 

Lugo-Lugo, 650 S.W.2d at 81 (the act intending to cause serious bodily injury must 

be “objectively clearly dangerous to human life”). 

“Intent and knowledge are fact questions for the jury and are almost always 

proven through evidence of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” Manrique v. 
 –9– 

State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Meyers, J., concurring). A jury 

may infer a defendant’s intent by his acts, words, and conduct, as well as the method 

he used to commit the crime, the nature of the wounds inflicted on the victim, and 

the relative size and strength of the parties. Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2002) (citing Manrique, 994 S.W.2d at 649); Patrick v. State, 906 

S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 

Appellant asserts the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because 

the record is “void” of evidence that he intentionally or knowingly caused Pamela’s 

death, intended to cause serious bodily injury, or committed or attempted to commit 

an act clearly dangerous to human life. We disagree. 

Appellant does not dispute that he caused Pamela’s death. There was 

evidence indicating that appellant was angry with Pamela because, in his words, she 

would not “shut up.” The jury reasonably could infer that his anger was a motive 

for attacking Pamela and a circumstance indicating his guilt and culpable mental 

state. See Gonzalez v. State, 616 S.W.3d 585, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing 

Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). 

The evidence also shows that appellant “brutally assaulted” Pamela. There 

was a significant physical disparity between the two, and Dr. Lenfest testified that 

Pamela’s injuries were not the kind of injuries seen in persons capable of defending 

themselves. Dr. Lenfest concluded that the extensive injuries to Pamela’s head alone 

were the result of “many different impacts” and it would have taken a “significant 
 –10– 

amount of force” to cause her injuries, particularly the separation of her scalp from 

her skull and the fractures to her ribs. The jury could infer the extremely violent 

nature of appellant’s behavior from the testimony about, and photographs showing, 

Pamela’s injuries, the extent of blood throughout the kitchen, and the damage to the 

Pences’ house. Given the manner in which appellant committed the offense and the 

injuries he inflicted on a much smaller and weaker victim, a rational jury could have 

found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant attacked Pamela with intent to cause 

her death, knew that such an attack could kill her, or, with intent to cause Pamela 

serious bodily injury, committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that created 

a substantial risk of death. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 487; e.g., Tretter v. State, No. 

03-12-00034-CR, 2014 WL 3893016, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 7, 2014, pet. 

dism’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (jury could infer that defendant 

intentionally or knowingly caused his wife’s death and intentionally caused her 

serious bodily injury from the severity of her head trauma and other blunt force 

injuries, which were consistent with multiple impacts and resulted from significant 

and severe force, and from the size and strength differential between defendant and 

his wife). 

Appellant’s subsequent conduct also supports the jury’s verdict. He initially 

prevented Ricky from entering the house, waited hours before telling Ricky of 

Pamela’s death, and then fled. See Wilkerson v. State, 881 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1994) (defendant’s flight from the scene, among other facts, supported 
 –11– 

jury’s finding of intent to kill). Indeed, the evidence shows that appellant’s priority 

was to avoid returning to jail. 

To support his argument that the evidence is insufficient, appellant points to 

his expressions of remorse and statements indicating that he did not mean for Pamela 

to die. The jury, however, in fulfilling its duty to resolve conflicting inferences in 

the evidence, could have determined that appellant’s subsequent expressions of 

remorse did not negate or rebut his intent to cause Pamela’s death or serious bodily 

injury or his knowledge that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause her death. 

See, e.g., Gipson v. State, No. 09-19-00275-CR, 2021 WL 3743838, at *3 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont Aug. 25, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (jury could have decided that defendant’s remorse after stabbing victim 

did not show he did not act intentionally or knowingly when the stabbing occurred). 

Likewise, the jury was free to distrust appellant’s self-serving statements that he 

“didn’t mean to do it” and it “wasn’t intentional” in light of the evidence indicating 

otherwise. See, e.g., Jones v. State, No. 01-01-01233-CR, 2003 WL 21513051, at 

*7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2003, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (jury was free to disbelieve appellant’s statement that he 

did not intend to kill victim). 

Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we 

conclude that the jury rationally could have found that appellant caused Pamela’s 

death with the requisite culpable mental state under penal code section 19.02(b)(1), 
 –12– 

(2), or (3). We further conclude that the jury reasonably could have drawn the 

inferences necessary to establish that appellant’s conduct created a substantial risk 

of death and, therefore, he committed an act clearly dangerous to human life. 

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue. 

Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

220637F.U05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –13– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RICHARD RAY PENCE II, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-00637-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 397th Judicial 

District Court, Grayson County, 

Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 072811. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Molberg and Carlyle 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 9th day of August, 2023.