### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 56 -C R

______________________________ J OSHUA CAL EB H I

NES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35529-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor a nd

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I n ear ly 2007, J oshua Caleb Hine s and Chry stal Hines—marr ied for a pproxi mately

two and one-ha lf y ear s at the time—wer e staying at the Deluxe I nn (pre viously known as the Community I nn) in Kilgor e whe n they

beg an arg uing in their

motel room. When J oshua left the r oom, Chry stal loc ke d th e do or

be hin d h im. On

his re tur n, Joshu a kic ked in t

he do or , a nd the tw o r e su me d th e ir
argume nt, wh ic h ( a c c or din g to C hr y sta l) be c a me ph y sic a l. T he on ly e y e wi tne ss to t he a rgume nt t o te sti fy duri ngthe g uil t/i nn oc e nc e ph a se of the tr ia l w a s Ch ry sta l. J oshua wa ived his righ t t o a jury trial and submitted to the trial court the issues of g uilt/i nnocenc e and punishment on his charg e of f elony assault by

family violence. T he trial c ourt f o u n d Jo s h u a g u il ty a n d s e n te n c e d h im to f iv e y e a r s ' c o n f

in e me n t. T h e tr ia l c o u rt did not g rant community

supervision. J oshua now a ppeals, raising severa l issues. We overr ule each and a ffirm the tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. ( 1) Sufficient Evidenc e Supports the Trial Court' s Judgme nt J oshua conte nds the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to support his conviction. I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e view al l of th e e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the ve rdict and de termine whe ther a ny rational trier

of fa ct coul d have f

ound the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 2 3 S. W. 3 d

1 , 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2000). By contra st, the standard of revie w for fac tual sufficie ncy require s us to ex amine
a ll the evi den ce in a

ne utr a l li g ht, a nd

we may re ve rs e the low e r c ourt ' s ju dg me nt o nly if it i s soJ oshua admitted he had been previously convicted of assa ult in the form of family

violence. 1 3 ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e or if the ver dict otherwise a ppear s to be manifestly

unjust. Cle wis v . S

tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A p e rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of a ssa ult if he or sh e " int e nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y
caus es b od il y

in ju ry t o a n o t h e r , i n c lu di ng th e per so n's s po us e." T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22 .0 1( a )( 1) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 07 ). Th a t of

fe ns e is a c la ss Amis de me a no r, un le ss t he vic tim is the defe ndant' s spouse and the de fenda nt has bee n previously and finally convicted of

assaulting a fa mily member, in whic h case the cr ime become s a fe lo n y o ffe nse. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.01(b)( 2). 1 Chry stal testified she and Joshua wer e mar ried Au gust 11, 2004, and wer e still married a s of the date of trial. Af

ter Joshua returne d t o t h e couple ' s room by kicking in the door, the two
re su me d th e ir

a rgume nt. Duri ngthe fi na l st a g e s o f t he a rgume nt, Joshu a tw ic e pu sh e d Ch ry sta l in he r c he st a

nd de mand e d th e re tur

n o f t he we dd ing ri ng he ha d g ive n h e r. Joshu a a lso a tte mpt e d to bit e Chr y sta l. T he tw o e nd e d u

p s tr ug g lin g on

the be d. Duri ngthe str

uggle, J os hua

re po rt e dly kicked Chry stal on her l eg. S oon there afte r, the motel mana g er a rrived a nd Chry stal called the Kilgor e Police De partment. Chry stal further

testified that, as a result of being assaulted, she develope d a lar g e bruise on one leg(lasting approximately three wee ks), a smaller bruise on the other le g , and scr atche s on her neck. Chry stal also repor tedly experience d bodily pain as a result of being assaulted by J oshua.4

On cr oss-examination by J oshua, Chry stal admitt ed to having had a n extra-marital a ffa ir. J oshua also vig orously

questioned Chry stal about the trustworthiness of her testi mony , based on he r
ear li e r e f f o rts to d iv o r c e Jo s h u a a n d g a in c u s to dy o f th e c o u p le ' s c h il d
. Jo s h u a ' s th e o r y was that Chry stal could g ain a tac tical adva ntag e in the custody suit if J oshua wa s sent to prison, sugg esting a malapr opos motivation for her testimony
. Chry stal also informed the tr ial court that Joshua had
rec ently violate d th e ir divorce court' s temporar

y custody order s by not allowing the couple' s daug hter to visit Chry stal. Detec tive Vince Ca llahan of the Kilgor e P olice Department was the onl y witness, other than Chry stal, to testify during the g uilt/i nnocenc e phase of trial. Callahan was dispatched to the scene of Jos hua and Chry stal' s argument by repor ts of a domestic dist urbanc e. Callahan testified that he ob se rv e d a

" sli g ht r e dn e ss" a ro un d Ch ry sta l' s n e c k a nd ri g ht c a lf wh e n h e a rr ive d at the mot e l r oo m. He did not notice any bleeding or bruising. The office r did, howeve r, notice the room' s doorknob had bee n broken due to a forc ed entr y . Kee ping in mind the applica ble standar ds of re view, we conclude that the witnesses provided leg ally sufficie nt evidence to establish proof for eac h ele m ent of a ssault of a fa mily member, a s define d by

Section 22.01 of the Te x as Penal Code. See T EX . P EN A L C O DE ANN . § 22.01 (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). We also conclude the evidenc e in this case is fac tually sufficie nt to support the trial
c ourt ' s ju dg me nt b e c a

us e the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the c on vic tio n, wh e n v ie we d in a neu tr a l li g ht, is5

no t g re a tly

ou tw e ig he d b y

c on tr a ry e vid e nc e no r d oe s it app ear th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt i s manifestly

unjust. W e ther efor e over rule Joshua's e videntiary

sufficie ncy

points of error
. ( 2) The Trial

Court Did Consider Community Supervision As a Sente ncing Option Joshu a a lso c on te nd s th e tr ia l court e rr e d by fa ili ng to co ns ide r pla c ing him on c omm un ity supervision. The State a sked the trial court to sentenc e J oshua to ten y ear s' confine ment. J oshua,
a t be st, ma de a

ta c it r e qu e st t o th e tr ia l c ourt fo r c omm

un ity su pervi si on , whi le a lso re a dil y ackn owl edgin g that he "cert ain ly [ was ] no t en ti tl ed t o p rob ati on ." I n p ro no un c ingse nte nc e , th e tr ia l c ourt ma de c le a r t

hat it was c on sid e ri ngc omm

un ity supervision: Having found y ou g uilty , Inote that y ou' ve had two pr i o r def err ed adjudication probations, both of which r esulted in re vocation. Tha t's e noug h to tell me that pr ob a tio n is no t th e a ns we r i n y our c a se . Y ou comm itt e d a c ri me that I

take a dim view of. And a t th is ti me , I a s s e s s y o u r p u n is h me n t [a t] f iv e y e a r s ' c o n f

in e me n t in the I ns tit uti on a l D ivi sio n o f t

he Te xas De pa

rtme nt of Cr imi na l J us tic e , g ivi ng y ou c re dit on that se nte nc e fo r a

ny tim e y ou ' ve be e n in

ja il u p to thi s p oin t. The re cord shows the trial court did consider community supervision as a se ntencing option, bu t—a ft e r c on sid e ri nga ll the a va ila ble op tio ns in l ig ht o f t

he fa c ts o f t

his c a se (s uc h a s Joshua ' s p a st fa i l u re s t o o b ey

t h e o rd er s o f a c r i m i n a l co u rt )— ch o s e n o tt o gra n ts u ch l en i en cy . J o s h u a's
c on te nti on

to t he c on tr a ry

is w ith ou t me ri t.6

( 3) The Rec ord Does Not Support Joshua's C laim of a Disproport ionate Sentenc e Finally , J oshua conte nds his sentence is disproportionate to h i s cr i me. The U nited States Su p r e m e C o u rt h a s s u g g e s t e d a t h r e e - p r o n g e d t e s t f o r u s e i n a n a l y

z i n g c l a i m s t h a t a s e nte nc e is dis pr op or tio nate . T he re vie wi ngc ourt sh ou ld c on sid e r ( 1) the g ra vit y of the of fe ns e c omp a re d w ith the har shness of the pe nalty , (2) the sentenc es imposed for c rimes in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentenc es imposed for this (or substantially simil ar) crimes in other

jurisdictions. Solem

v . H e lm , 4 63 U. S. 2 77 , 2 90 (1 98 3) ; see also Harme lin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Scalia, J., plu ra lity op .) ; an d s e e Albe rto v . S

tat e , 100 S.W .3d 528, 530 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Fl ue lle n v . S

tat e , 71 S.W .3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. re f' d). I n this case, ther e is no evidenc e in the rec ord re g ardingeither the second or third prong s of the Solem analy sis. Absent such evidenc e, we must c onclude the rec ord is insuff icien t t o s upport a complaint that Joshua's sente nce is disproportionate
. See, e .g. , Gu in v . S tat e , 209 S.W .3d 682, 687 (T e x. App .— Te xar

ka na 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; Mu lli ns v . S tat e , 2 0 8 S. W. 3 d

4 6 9 , 4 7 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 2 00 6, no pet. ); Albe rto , 1 00 S.W. 3d a t 52 9; Fluellen , 7 1 S. W. 3 d a t 8 7 3
. We
overr ule J oshua' s final issue.7

F or the re a so ns state d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: April 25, 2008 Date D ecide d: April 28, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh