Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00609-CR

MATTHEW VINCENT WOODARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1366319

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

A jury convicted Matthew Vincent Woodard of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon. Appellant pled true to an enhancement paragraph and the jury 

sentenced him to confinement for thirty years in the Institutional Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

We affirm.
2

In his sole issue, appellant claims the evidence was legally insufficient to 

support his conviction. Appellant asserts the State failed to prove that he was the 

person who shot the complainant, Veronda Bailey. 

EVIDENCE OF SHOOTER’S IDENTITY

Bailey testified that on the evening of October 14, 2012, she was at the 

apartment of a friend, Demetric Wheeler. A person Bailey knew by sight 

approached her. She identified appellant in court as that person. Appellant had a 

gun in his hands. Appellant demanded Bailey pay him $40 that he claimed she 

owed him for a gambling debt. Bailey refused to pay and appellant waived the gun 

in her face and pushed her against the bathroom wall. The gun went off and Bailey 

fell to the floor. Appellant and Bobby Anderson carried Bailey outside and left. 

The police arrived and Bailey was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Bailey 

had surgery and spent several days in the hospital.

Demetric Wheeler testified to personally knowing appellant and identified 

him in court. According to Wheeler, appellant entered her apartment with a gun 

and said Bailey owed him $40. Appellant went into the bathroom where Bailey 

was and shot her. After appellant and Anderson took Bailey outside, Wheeler left 

and returned in time to see Bailey put in the ambulance.

Investigator Joseph Nguyen showed Bailey and Wheeler a photo and both 

identified appellant as the gunman.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence 

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

any reasonable inferences therefrom, whether a rational jury could have found the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 
3

746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 

(1979)). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury by reevaluating 

the weight and credibility of the evidence. Romero v. State, 406 S.W.3d 695, 697 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. stricken). We defer to the jury’s 

responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the evidence fairly, weigh the evidence, 

and draw reasonable inferences. Id. The jury alone decides whether to believe 

eyewitness testimony, and it resolves any conflicts in the evidence. Id. In 

conducting a sufficiency review, we do not engage in a second evaluation of the 

weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure the jury reached a rational 

decision. Young v. State, 358 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2012, pet. ref’d).

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues the verdict was not rational because there were reasons to 

doubt the reliability of the testimony of Bailey and Wheeler. The jury heard all the 

evidence appellant refers to in his brief. The jury resolved any conflicts in the 

evidence against appellant. The jury weighed the evidence and the credibility of 

the witnesses and determined appellant was the shooter. It is not the role of this 

court to determine which evidence the jury should have believed. See Wicker v. 

State, 667 S.W.2d 137, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 

Appellant also questions whether eyewitness testimony, without more, can 

satisfy the State’s burden of proof. “The testimony of a single eyewitness can be 

enough to support a conviction.” Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 917 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d 

75, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)). 
4

We conclude that a rational finder of fact could have determined beyond a 

reasonable doubt that appellant was the person who shot Bailey. We overrule 

appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Ken Wise

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).