### NUM BER 13-04- 0049 4-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
LE E A NN YVE TT E H ERN A ND EZGA RZA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 27 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

Opin ion b y

C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y found appe llant, Lee Ann Yv ette Her nandezGar z a, g uil ty

of attempt ed murde r, a s econd deg re e f elo ny
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 15.01, 19.0 2( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 3) . T h e jur y as ses sed puni shmentat tw enty y ears’ co nfinement and a $10,000 fine. In w hat w e cons tr ue as tw o is sues present ed for our re v iew , Gar z a c ontends2

th att he e v i de nc e i s le g al l y and fac tu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt he r c on v i c ti on
. W e affi r m. I. G A RZA ’ S B R I EF As a threshol d matt er , w e mustaddress v ar iou s d efici enci es in Gar z a’s appel lat e b r i e f t h a tth e St a t e ha s ca l l e d to ou r at t e n t i o n
. B y

th e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d s e c t i o n o f h e r b r i e f, Gar z a pur por

ts to rai se elev en i ss ues for our rev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( f). Iss ues four thro ugh nine o f

t hatse ction are titled “Insu f f icient tim e alloca ted or prov ided to so [sic] thi s w or k,” and they

are nev er

m enti oned ag ain in w hat maybe cons ide re d the arg ument
sec ti on of

the br ief. See id

. Rul e 38.1( i)

. Acc ordin g ly , thes e “i ss ues” present nothi ng for
our rev iew

. Iss ues one t hroug h three are s tated as foll ow s: (1 ) W hether

the tr ial courtauthori z ed the j ur y to non- unani mous [ si c] find g uil t? (2) W het her t h e t ri a l co urt unco nstitu tiona lly ame nde d the g rand jury ’s ind ic tment by

authori z ing the jur

y to conv ic t und er

parag ra ph 2B of the cour t’ s c harg e? ( 3 ) W hether

the Stat e obtaine d th i s p a rt y ’ s l aw conv ic ti on uncon sti tuti onal ly

by arg uin g under

c o u rt’s ch arg e parag ra ph 2B for jury ’s non-un anim ous f inding of app ellant ’s beginning any of six ov ert acts after W ally

Salazar comp leted charged att em pte d mu rder? U nli ke is sues four throug h ni ne, t hese “i ss ues” make ass erti ons and app ear as phrases in the a rg ument s ect ion . Nev erthel ess , the State posi ts thatthe firs t thre e i ss ues do not prese nta ny

a rg um en t or

a ut ho r i ty

i n s up po rt of t he i r

a s s er ti on s a nd a r e i na de q uat ely br iefed. See id . ( “The br ief must contai n a cl ear and conc is e arg ument for the cont enti ons made, w it h appropr iat e cit ati ons to au thor it ies and to t he record.” ). W e ag re e and conc lud e that the i ss ues ar e w aiv ed.Al t hough t he t r i al cour t f ound G ar z a i ndi gent , herf at her r et ai ned and pai d f or an appel l at e at t or ney 1 th a t s h e re q u e s te d , s ee infr a
. 3 In he r tenth and ele v enth is sues , G arz a c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y and factu ally insuf f icient be cause the re is insuf f icient ev iden ce tha t she is guilty of the of fense under the law of par ti es. I n adv anci ng thes e final tw o i ss u e s, Gar z a does not make a si ng le re cord re ferenc e. Id

. T he state me nt of f acts sect ion, which conta ins som e record
re ferenc es, co nsi sts enti re ly of (1 ) larg e por

ti ons of t he tr ial att or ney s’ cl osi ng arg uments to t he j ur

y , and ( 2) the tes ti mony of Pe dro Vel a, on e of the fourteen w it ness es w ho tes ti fied. In s ubmit ti ng Gar z a’s mostrecentbr ief, her re tai ned appell ate c ounse l noted that he was subm itting an “Ame nde d Initia l Appe llant’s B ri e f ” and that“[h]op ef ully , this Appel lan t’ s s uch final br ief w il l soon be fil ed w it h the cl er k o f this bus y co urt of appeal s.” To the extent Gar

z a’s appel lat e couns el re q uest s lea v e from thi s Cou rtto amend
or su ppl ement t he br ief, suc h re q uest is hereby deni ed. Gar

z a’s noti ce of appeal w as filed on Aug ust10, 2004. Si n ce t h a t date, Gar z a’s appel lat e c ounse l has been g ra nted four
extens ion s o f time, and t his ca se has been ab ated tw ic e. The firs t abatement w as made to deter mine the s tatus of mis si ng por ti ons of the repor

ter ’s record. Se e id . R U LE 38.3( a) (2 ). The sec ond aba tement w as made bec ause no appe ll ate b ri ef w as filed , and thi s Cour t direct ed th e tr ial co urt t o c onduc t a hear ing to deter mine, inter alia , i f Garz a w as ind ig ent and w is hed to prose cut e her appeal

. See id

. Rule 38. 8(b)(2) & (3). Th e trial court found Gar

z a i ndi g ent and re commended to t his C ourt t hat h er br ief be due on June 29, 1 200 7. On J u ly 2 , 2 0 0 7, ne arly three years af

ter the notice of

app eal w as f iled, Ga rz a’s appel lat e c ounse l submi tted a bri ef that thi s Cour t str uck because itfail ed to co mply w it h then- subs ect ion s ( b) , ( c) , ( d ), ( e) and (g ) of Rul e 38. 1 of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat eO n S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s a p p ro v e d a m e n d m e n ts to a p p e l l a te 2 ru l e s th a t a ff e c t c rim i n a l a p p e a l s
. See A m en dm en t s t o t he R ul es of A pp ell ate P roc ed ure , M i sc. D ocket N o. 08- 103 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. , Sep. 30, 200 8)

. Consequent l y , t he su bsect i ons o fR ul e 38. 1 wer e sl i ght l y r eor der ed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1. At t he t i m e G ar z a’ s f i r st br i ef was st r uck, i t om i t t ed t he f ol l owi ng: a t abl e of cont ent s, a n i n d e x o f a u th o rit i e s , a s ta te m e n t o f th e c a s e , t h e i s s u e s p re s e n te d , a n d a s u m m a ry o f th e a rg u m e n t. See i d. Accor di ngl y , t he C l er k oft hi s C our t i s or der ed t o desi gnat e G ar z a’ s S ept em ber 4, 2007 br i efas f i l ed.

3
4 Procedu re
. This Cour t ordered that Garz a’s newbri ef be f il ed on Aug ust31, 2007. On 2 Sep tem ber 4, 2 007 , Garza’s ap pellat e coun sel ten dere d the b rief t hatis currently before
us. Gi v en Ga rz a’s appel lat e c oun se l’s persi ste nt de re li cti on, w e s ubmitthi s c ase on Gar z a ’ s mo s t r e c e n t a n d t a rd y b r i e f a n d t h e S t a t e ’ s b r i e f i n o rd e r n o t t o d ela ythe 3 submi ss ion of thi s c ase any l ong er
. See i

d. Rule 38.8 (b)(1) ( providing tha t an a ppe llant’s failu re to ti mely

fil e a b ri ef does n ot au thor iz e ei ther di smi ss al o f

t h e a p peal or
cons ide ra ti on of t h e a p p e a l w it hout br ief ex ceptunder l imi ted c ircums tanc es)

. Our dec is ion to s ubmitthe ins tant br iefs is made i n l ig ht of Gar z a’s co nst it uti onal r ig ht t o proceed w it h the a ttor ney

of her ch oosi ng
. S e e Po we ll v. A la b a ma , 287 U .S. 45, 5 3 ( 1932) ( prov idi ng tha t a def end antshou ld be af forde d fair oppo rtunity to secure cou nsel of his ow n cho ice). On S eptember

8, 2004, Gar

z a fil ed a hol og ra phi c mot ion st ati ng thatsh e w is hed t o subs ti tute as her

att or ney on a ppeal an a ppel lat e att or ney tha t her father retai ned, and that attor ney

has represent ed her ev er si nce. W e c oncl ude t hat G arz a’s r ig ht t o c hoi ce of
re tai ned c ounse l extends to an appe ll ate a ttor ney
. How ev er , outof an abun dance of caut ion and in order to ensure tha t G arz a’s r ig hts
ar e protec ted, w e w il l cons ide r Gar z a’s tw o rem ain ing i ss ues. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 8(b)(4) (prov iding that ba sed o n a Rule 38 .8(b)(3) hea ring record, an “app ellate court
ma yac t ap p ro p r i a t e l y

t o e n s u r e t h a tt h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s r i g h t s a r e p ro t e c t e d

. . . . ” )

. I n s om eBef or e t r i al , Sal az ar pl eaded gui l t y t o at t em pt ed m ur der and r ecei v ed a t en- y ear sent ence. Vel a, 4 who was si xt een y ear s ol d at t r i al , al so pl eaded gui l t y t o at t em pt ed m ur der and r ecei v ed a t en- y ear pr obat ed det er m i nat e sen t ence.
5 appeal s w here the br iefin g i s a pparentl y adeq uate, the cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s h as found i th e l p fu l t o q u o t e l a rg e p o rt i o n s o f t h e S t a t e ’ s b r i e f t o c o n v e y t h e fa c t u a l b a c k g ro u n d o f a
case. See, e.g., Klein v. Sta te , 27 3 S. W .3 d 29 7, 30 2 n. 2 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p. 2008 ). Acc ordin g ly , w e w il l re countthe ev ide nce and rev iew i ts su f f ici ency w it h the g uid ance of the S tate’ s b ri ef and our ow n rev iew

of the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 9(b). II. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In w hatw e con strue as h er tw o issues, Garz a con ten ds tha t the evidence is legally and factu all y

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t her co nv icti on. A
. Factual Background On O cto ber

15, 2003, M. C. , a sev enteen- y ear-o ld g ir l, w as beaten, st ra ng led , sta b b e d , w r a p p e d i n a t a r p , a n d l e ft i n a d i t c h t o d i e b y G u a d a l u p e “ W a l l y ” Sal az ar and Gar z a. The moti v e for the i nci dent w as a l ov e tr ian g le that tur ned v iol ent. The foll ow ing ind iv idu als , inter alia , testif ied for the State at tri al as to the atta ck: (1) M.C., (2) Salazar, and ( 3) Pedro Vel a, a w it ness to por ti ons of the i nci dent. 4 The Stat e s ummari z ed M .C .’ s t est imony as the follo w ing , w hic h i s p ro v ide d w it hout record citat ions:

[M .C .] te s t i fi e d t h a ts h e h a s k n o w n [ G a rz a ] fo r a b o u tfi v e y e a rs a nd the tw o of

them had bee n be st f rien d s f o r tw o-an d-a-ha lf y ears be fore Oct ober 15, 2003; that W all y

Sal az ar had been [ Gar

z a’s] b o yf riend at t hat ti me; th at s he had been da ti ng Os car Ol iv arez , W all y ’s cous in; that [Gar z a] and W all y

had broken up i n the fall of 20 03; that she and W all y w oul d tal k a s fri e n d s fo r a b o u t tw o w e e k s b e fo r e O c t o b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 ; a n d t h a t t h e yhad ki ss ed, b ut no thi ng more. [ M. C. ] al so ind ic ated that [Gar z a] had know n tha t s h e w a s s e e i n g W a l l y ; t h a t[ G a rz a ] h a d o n c e w a i t e d fo r h e r a n d W a l l y

to6

re tur n to her

h o u se , g one ov er

to W all y ’s tr uck , t ri ed to ki ss W all y , g otten pushe d aw ay , s lap ped W all y on the forehead, and had t he tr uck door cl osed on her ; t hat s he a n d [ Garz a] ha d l eft tog ether after thi s i nci dent; and that [Gar z a] ha d notbeen mad at her and had s aid thatsh e w as seei ng her brother ’s fri end R oy
. [M .C .] next s tated that[G arz a] ha d as ked her i f an yth in g had happened after she and W all y had sto pped t alk ing ; t hat s he had re pli ed th at the y had kissed, bu t tha t it had n o tmea nt an ything; tha t [Garza] had said tha t th a t w as fine; a nd th at s he and W all y had sto pped t alk ing after se v en days becau se [Ga rz a] had told W ally tha t she w as pregnan t. [M.C.] also said tha t she an d Oscar Oli va re z h a d g otte n ba ck togethe r three da y s before Oct ober 15th ; t hat s he had g otten into an arg ument w it h her father abouther boyf riend on Octo be r

1 4t h an d ha d l eftw i th s om e fr i en ds , g on e to R oy ’s h o u s e a n d s t a rt e d d ri n k in g a n d u s in g c o c a in e ; t h a t [ G a rza ] wa s a lwa ys tal ki ng aboutw anti ng to ki ss so mebody ; that she had a feeli ng that[G arz a] w a s s t i l l u p s e t a b o u t W a l l y ; a n d t h a t s h e h a d t o l d h e r mo t h e r t h a t[G arz a] w as probabl y

g oin g to ki ll her

. [M.C.] the n s a id t h a t she ha d aske d a f riend to take he r to Oscar’s house at about 2:30 a.m. on Oct ober 15th; thatOs car had left for

Aus ti n the next mor nin g ; t hat W all y and [Vel a] had g one by and honke d; t hat s he had then cal led W all y

so se e i f he w as okay ; and that W all y had tol d her

thathe w ould send more f riends to pick her up. Sh e also no ted that[tw o oth er ma le frie nds and Vela] had already been w ait ing for

her w hen s he l ooked outs ide ; that [one of the ot her

fri ends] h a d dr iv en to W all y ’s hous e; t hat W all y had been s moki ng mar ihu ana by t h e picni c t abl e near

the li ttl e room and had pass ed i t around t o the othe rs ; t hat s he and W all y had l ater g one and pi ck ed up W all y 's brother

M ar k a nd s omeone named S e rgio at s chool ; and that W all y had tol d her

thathe d id not k now

how [G arz a] c oul d be preg nant w hen she w as tak ing bi rt h c ontrol pil ls and usi ng the patc h. [M .C .] next s tated that [the tw o other male frie nds and Ve la] had been sta ndi ng around t he frontof [a] car cl eani ng so me mar ihu ana w hen t hey re tur ned t o W all y ’s hous e; t hat t he g ro up had th e n s ta rt ed to smok e the mari huana; that she had feltw eak, had not smoked w it h the others , and had saton t he dr iv er ’s si de of the car , that W all y had tol d her that he w as g oin g to c all [ Ga rza] ; a n d tha t s he had heard W all y tel li ng [G arz a] t hat h e had a sur pr is e for [Gar

z a] w hen t he song being play ing ended. S he al so ind ic ated that [Gar z a] ha d pul led up i n her red D odg e N eon and sa id “h i” to ev er y one; that W all y

had then poin ted t o her ; t hat [ Gar z a] ha d the n c ome ov er , g iv en him a hug, and ask ed if she w as hig h; that [Gar z a] had then asked h er

to g et out of t he car and sta nd next to her lea nin g on the p ic nictabl e; t hat s he had done s o; an d tha t W all y , M ar k, [othe rs and Vel a] had b een abo ut fiv e feet7

aw ay w hil e s he and [Gar

z a] w ere hav ing thei r ow n conv ersat ion at that poi nt. [M .C .] further

st ated that [Gar

z a] ha d tol d her

thatshe w as preg nant; thatsh e had as ked if i t w as Roy ’s or W all y ’s ; th a t [G a rz a] ha d l ooked at her and at the e x ces s w ater to the back of W all y ’s house and t hen as ked is sh e w anted to go for a sw im; th at she had looked at [Garza], w ho said tha t she was j ust jok ing ; and that[G arz a] ha d the n s aid thati t w as W all y ’s baby [M.C.] f urthe r testif ied th at [Ga rz a] ha d the n gone to talk to W ally bet w een the m ain ho use and t he little room ; tha t W ally had raised his v oice and ment ion ed his appoi ntment; that [Garz a] had then come back to tal k t o her; th at [Ga rz a] ha d picked up a shovel, w alked to [a f riend] , and rep eat edly sai d tha t she w as g oin g to ki ll [t he fri end] w it h the sh ov el; and that she had notreally believed [Garza], w ho had h ad a big sm ile o n her face. She also sta ted t hat [ Gar

z a] ha d s tood next t o her , t hat W all y had g otten her

att enti on; that she had t hen felt[G arz a] hi t her on t he forehe a d wit h the sh ov el; that she had t hen foug ht [ Gar z a] ov er the shov el; that [ Ga rz a] ha d the n sc re amed, “N ow , W all y ”; and that W all y had then come u p behi nd her and g ra bbed he r hands behi nd her bac k. [M .C .] next i ndi cat ed th at s he had ask ed w hat t hey w ere doi ng ; t hat W all y had made her

w alk bac kw a rd s a nd puther i n the l it tl e room; t hat [Gar z a] ha d j ustbeen l ooki ng at her w it h a “ re al mad face” , w it hout say ing anythi ng ; t hat [ Gar

z a] h a d s h u t the d oor ; t hat W all y had hel d her

dow n on the c ouch; and that [Gar z a] ha d been putti ng her hai r up in the rest ro om w it h the kni fe W all y

alw ay s car ri ed open in her hand. She als o noted that [G arz a] had r e sp o n ded t o her

i nq uir y w hy sh e w as doi ng thi s t o her by sa y ing that she had “ fucked w it h my rela ti onshi p” ; t hat sh e h a d g otten her r ig ht ha nd loo se and g ra bbed [ Gar z a’s ] han d w it h t h e kn ife; t hat [ Gar z a] ha d s pli t her han d op en; thatW ally

h ad gotten h er h and a nd again putit be hind her back; that [Gar z a] had g otten re all y upset that she had g ra bbed t he k nife and had sta rt ed s creaming bad w ords and s tabbi ng her

. [M.C.] the n poin ted out tha t the f irst w oun ds had bee n to h e r n eck; th a t [ Ga rza] h a d b e e n c a lli n g h e r a b it ch an d a sl u t a n d ha d be e n scr e a m in g, “H ow co uld y ou, y ou fuck ing w hore?” ; t hat s he had been begg ing [G arz a] and W ally

to let her l iv e and had said that W ally didn’t m ean anything to her; and th a t sh e had aw akene d s ti ll on h er kn ees w it h her

hands behi nd her back , w it h W all y

no l ong er

behi nd her

and [Gar

z a] in the rest ro om tr

y ing to throw up. She als o s tat e d tha t s he had beg g ed [G arz a] no t t o hur t her any more and told [Garz a] t hat s he w oul d nottel l “t hem” that they had done thi s to her; that[Garz a] had kept screaming for h er to sta y there and sai d tha t s h e wa s go in g t o k il l h e r; a n d [ G a rza ] h a d t h e n ru n o u t s id e a n d ye ll e d “W a ll y, she’ s g etti ng aw ay ”; and that [Gar z a] ha d ru n after her and tol d her thatsh e w asn’t going to hurt he r anymore an d w as going to take her to the ho spital;8

and thatshe ha d the n seen W ally ’s sneake rs and felt W ally hit her again like they had hither

w it h the sh ov el behi nd her ear li er
. [M .C .] next i ndi cat ed th at s he had felt W all y and [Gar

z a] drag g ing her feet ; tha t she ha d op ene d he r e y es an d see n the m dra gg ing her tow ard W a l l y ’ s p ro p e rt y ; t h a ts h e h a d g ra b b e d o n t o the fen c e ; t h a tW a l l y h a d l e ft [Gar z a] t here; an d [G arz a] ha d kept ki ck ing her head, her ar m, and her

si de and t ell ing her

to q uitsc re aming ; and that[G arz a] had then put one foot on her slit neck and the oth er one on he r chest an d starte d jum ping. She also noted that she had been ye ll ing for hel p w hil e [G arz a] w as ste ppi ng on h er and k ic ki ng her ; t hat a ca r had pul led up and [ a fri end] had as ked w hat w as g oin g on; that [Gar

z a] ha d tol d [t h e f rie n d] t o g et ou t of here and sai d tha t [M .C .] w as tr

y ing to ki ll hersel f; and that she had t aken [Gar z a’s ] foot off of her nec k a nd to ld [the frie nd] t hat W all y and [Gar

z a] w ere tr

y ing to ki ll her

. [M .C .] then tes ti fied that [Gar z a] had y ell ed for W all y ; that W all y had com e w earing a bloo d-soa ked sh irt, that [G arz a] had gott en o f f of her neck, g one t ow ard W all y ’s hous e, an d tol d W all y to ki ll her ; t hat s he had beg g ed W all y to lether

l iv e; t hat W all y

had knel t nea r to he r and told her to “j ustl et g o” ; t hat s he had sai d tha t s he c oul d not ; and that W a ll y had then sta rt ed strangling her. S h e also said thatshe ha d kep t try ing to hit and scratch W a ll y t o ge t h im t o le t h e r go ; t h a t s h e h a d t h e n ju s tse e n b la c k ; t h a tt h e n e xt thi ng sh e remem b e rs is W all y drag g ing her , s eei ng her ey es open, and putti ng hi s h ands around he r neck ag ain ; that she had felt“ them” drag g ing her and he ard s om et hi ng pl as ti c be i ng pu t arou nd he r ; an d th at s he f elt hands pi ck ing her

up a nd heard the tr unk cl ose. [M .C .] next s tated thatsh e had heard the ca r sto p, t he doors o pen, and t he tr unk open; that she had hea rd so meone s ay thatsh e w as sti ll al iv e; that she had then felt t hem st ab her behi nd th e ear

ag ain ; t hat t hey

had had a probl em g etti ng the kni fe out; a nd th at s he had felt them pic k h er up a nd drop her on t he g ro und. She als o i ndi cat ed th at s he had re cog niz ed [t he v oic es of thre e m a le s, in cl udi ng Vel a’s v oic e]; that she had hea rd the car dr iv e aw ay

and sound l ik e i t had g otten st uck ; t hat s he had al so heard the doo rs open and close and fee t runn ing; tha t she had th en u nwrapp ed h erself and prayed thatnob ody w as in the ca r; th at she had foun d Mark’s w hite sh irt and put it be hind her ear; and thatshe ha d the n gotten u p and t old he rself that she w as g oin g to make i t. [M .C .] then tes ti fied that she had sta rt ed w alk ing and pray ing unti l she ev entual ly

reache d her

boyfrie nd’ s u ncl e; t hat s he had tol d tha t person that [Gar z a] an d W all y

had done t his to her

and then pass ed out ; t h a t she had then noti ced her

father ’s tr uck

ar ri v ing ; and that she had then tol d her father that she had made it

. She al so sta ted t hat h e r f a th e r had t old her mother9

that she w as ali v e; t hat s he had tol d her mother that[G arz a] an d W all y had done t his to her ; t hat t he paramedic s h ad ar ri v ed, p ut he r in the a mbulan ce, and t aken her

to the h ospi tal ; t hat s he had been i n t h e h ospi tal for a bout eight days; that sh e had received a tota l of 26 sta b w oun ds, 14 of w hich w ere li fe-threateni ng ; and that she had per manent sc ars to her hand, both si des of her neck, and her c h e s ta nd still has prob lem s w ith he r neck pain , back pai n, he adach es, and her thumb and han d. John Hov or ka, M .D ., M. C. ’s eme rg e n cy ro o m p h y s i c i a n , t e s t ified thatM .C . s ust ain ed
numerous sta b w ounds and a c oll apsed l ung thatw as li fe threateni ng
. S ala z ar ’s and Vel a’s tes ti mony

w il l not b e s ummari z ed bec ause iti s s omew hat redundant and not
neces sar

y to the fin al dis posi ti on of thi s a ppeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. In her defense, Gar z a tes ti fied th at s he had g otten i nto a fig ht w it h M.C ., Sal az ar pull ed th em apar

t, and the n Sala z ar began sta bbin g M.C. The ju ry ch arg e , whic h was submi tted w it hout obj ect ion s, ask ed th e j ur y to deter mine w hether Gar z a w as g uil ty of attempted murder or ag g ra v ated ass aul t i f she w as direct ly respon si ble for s tabbi ng M .C . or respon si ble bec ause of Salaz ar ’s ac ti ons. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 15.01, 19.0 2( b) (1 ). I n i ts ins tr uct ion s, the j ur y ch arg e i ncl uded the l aw of par ti e s a nd th e aff ir mati v e defense of dures s. See i d. §§ 7. 02( a) (2 ), 8.05 (V ern o n 2003)

. It did not inc lud e any i nst ru cti ons on th e ac compl ic e w it ness r ule

. See, e.g., T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.14 (V er non 200 5) ( “A conv ic ti on canno t be had upon t he te sti mony

of an ac compl ic e unl ess co rroborated by oth e r ev ide nce tendi ng to
conne ct the d efendant w it h the of fense committ ed .

. . .” ). The j ur y found Gar

z a g uil ty of attempt ed murder and ass ess ed puni shment at tw enty y ears’ co nfinement and a $10,000 fine. The tr ial cour

t re ndered a jud g ment of conv ic ti on and sent ence in acc ordance w it h the j ur y ’s v erdict and as ses sment. Thi s a ppeal ev entual ly foll ow ed.10

B. St and ard s o f Rev iew In c onduc ti ng a leg al suffici ency rev iew , w e v iew

the rele v ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether a rat ion al tr ier

of f actco uld hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of the cri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W .3 d 9, 13 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Ja c kson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979) ); Esc am il

la v. State , 143 S.W .3d 814 , 817 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). T he trier of fact is the sol e j udg e of the facts, the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S. W .3d 1 48, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, p et. re f’d)

. W e do not
re e va lu a t e t h e we ig h ta n d c r e d i b il it y o f t h e e vid e n c e , a n d we d o n o tsu b s t it u t e o u r o wn jud g ment for

the tr ier of fact. Ki

ng v. State , 29 S. W .3d 556 , 562 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00); Beck ham , 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 151

. Ins tead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal deci si on. Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. W hen c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e v iew

al l of th e e videnc e i n a neutral li g ht. Ladd v

. St ate , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 57 ( Tex . Cr im

. Ap p
. 1 9 9 9 ). W e w il l setthe
v erdic t as ide onl y

i f (1) the ev ide nce is so w eak that the v erdic t i s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustor

( 2) the v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pre p o n d e ra n ce of the
ev ide nce. Jo h n so n v. Sta te , 23 S. W .3d 1, 11 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 0). Under the f irst p ro n g o f Johns on , w e can notconclud e tha t a conviction is “cle a rly w rong” or “man ifestly unj ust ” si mply

bec ause, on t he q uantum o f ev ide nce admit ted, w e w oul d hav e v oted to acq uithad w e been on th e j ur y
. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 416 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2 0 0 6 )

. U n d e r

t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Johns on , w e c annot decl are that a confli ct in the11

ev ide nce jus ti fies a new tr ial si mply becau se w e dis ag re e w it h the jur y ’s resol uti on of that confli ct. Id

. Before findi ng thatev ide nce is factual ly ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor t a v erdic t und er t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Johns on , w e mustbe a ble to say , w it h s ome objec ti ve basi s i n the record, th at th e grea twe ight and pre pon dera nce o f the evidence contrad icts the jury’ s
v erdic t. Id

. I n cond ucting a factu al suf f iciency revi ew, w e mu st also discu ss the evidence that, accordin g to the appel lan t, most under mines the jur y ’s v erdic t. See S im s v . St ate , 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03). “A ppel lat e c our

ts shoul d afford al most compl ete d eferenc e to a jur y ’s decis ion w hen tha t decision is base d upo n an e v alua tion o f credibility .” Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S.W .3d 6 99, 7 0 5 ( Te x
. Cri m. App. 2008 )

. “ Th e j u r y i s i n t h e b e s tp o s i t i o n t o j u d g e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a
w it ness bec ause iti s p re sentto hear the tes ti mony , as oppos ed to an ap pel lat e c our t w ho relies on th e cold reco rd.” Id

. The ju ry may c h o o se to be li ev e s ome tes ti mony and dis bel iev e oth er

tes ti mony
. Id . at707. C. A nal ysis The f o llo w ing are the el ements of attempt ed murder : ( 1) a pe rs on, ( 2) w it h the specif ic intentto cause the de ath of ano the r, (3) doe s an act am oun ting to m ore tha n me re pr eparati on, ( 4) but fails to eff ectthe death of the ot her i ndi v idu al. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 15. 01( a) ; 19. 02( b) ; Rob er son v. State , 144 S.W .3d 3 4, 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 04, pet. re f’d) ; Jef

fley v. State , 938 S.W .2d 514, 517 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 1997, no pet .)

. A perso n i s c ri m in ally

respon sible for an of

fense comm itted bythe con ductof ano the r if acting w ith inte nt to prom ote or a s sist the com mission of the of fense , she solicits,
encou ra g es, di re cts , ai ds, or att empts to ai d the other person to commi t the o ff ense. T EX
.Sal az ar t est i f i ed t hat aft er t he h e l ef t M

. C

. i n t he d i t ch, he bur ned som e bl ood- soaked cl ot hes a nd 5 t he co uch wher e pa r t of t he a t t ack t ook pl ace.
12 P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 7.0 2(a)(2). Garza’s l egal suf

f iciency argume nt is: It is unc ontes ted t hat there is no ev ide nce that w it h the i ntentto promote or ass is t t he commis si on of the ind ic ted off ense, [G arz a] s oli ci ted, encou ra g ed, direct ed, aid e d or at tempted to ai d W all y Sal az ar to cutor

st ab th e compl ain ant a s c harg ed before the occ ur re nce of hi s l astac t of hi s a ctu al or attempt ed c utti ng or sta bbi ng , app ell ant h ad: (1 ) hit[M .C .] w it h a s hov el, or (2 ) o b t a in e d t h e k n if e fo r S a la za r, o r (3 ) s t a t e d t h a t[ M. C. ] wa s g e t t in g a wa y, or ( 4) hel d [M .C .] dow n on the ground to prev ent her esc ape, or (5 ) dis posed of the k nife, or (6 ) obtai ned a li g hter to setf ire to the ev ide nce, or ( 7) i nsi ste d that Sal az ar

se t fire to the cr ime sc ene, or ( 8) drov e aw ay

from t he l ocat ion [5] of the offense. But , M.C. testif ied th at Ga rz a stab bed her and told he r t h a ts h e wa s g oing to kill her. Add itiona lly , Dr. H ovorka testif ied th at th e stab w oun ds w hich pu nctu red M.C.’s lung w ere life threa ten ing. Accordin gly , the re is legally suf f icient ev iden ce to suppo rt Ga rz a’s
conv ic ti on on a theor

y of di re ct re spons ibi li ty

. See L e e v. Sta te , 239 S.W .3d 8 73, 8 78 (Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2007, pet. r e f’d) ( hol din g thata c omplai nant’ s t est imony i denti fyi ng shoot er i n an ag g ra v ated ass aul t cas e i s leg all y su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t a
conv ic ti on)

. Gar

z a’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Garza’s fact ual suf

f iciency argume nt is: Al thoug h the j ur

y w as cons ti tuti onal ly

per mitt ed to co nv ic t under parag ra ph 2B’ s l is ted “ after- the- fact” co nductthat w it h the req uis it e mens rea, [ Gar z a] be g an , di d an d c om pl et ed a fter t he e nt i r e c om pl et i on o f t he i nd i c te d c r i me by W all y Sal az ar , t he es senc e of [Gar z a’s ] factu al suffici ency cl aim is that [Garza] did no t v olun tarily act w ith in t e n tt o prom ote or assist Salazar’s commi ss ion of the o ff ense before S ala z ar compl eted his uni lat eral cr ime of attempt ing to caus e the death of the compl ain ant as noted in t he i ndi ctment o f t h e gra n d ju ry. W e a s s u me , b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o r e c o rd c i t a t i o n s , t h a t G a rz a ’ s a rg u me n t r e s t s on her13

tes ti mony

ac know led g ing a fig ht w it h M.C . but deny ing i nv olv ement i n the st abbi ng
. M. C. , how ev er , t est ified , inter alia , tha t she tried t o f lee bu t Garza y elled to Salazar, “W ally , she’s g etti ng aw ay ”, and that the a ttac k c onti nued. “The jur y i s t he ex cl usi v e j udg e of the credi bil ity of w it ness es and of the w eig ht t o be giv en te stimo ny, an d it is also the e x clusiv e province o f t he jury t o recon cile conf licts in the ev iden ce.” W

esbr ook v. State , 29 S. W .3 d 103, 111 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. In
reso lvi n g c o n f licts in the evidence , a jury “may accept on e v ersion of facts an d reject
ano the r or reject any of a w itness’ te stimo ny.” Bake r v. State , 9 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 1998, pet. re f’d)

. In thi s cas e, the jur y apparentl y acc epted M. C. ’s v er is on of the at tac k o v er

Gar z a’s deni al. W e con clude thatGarz a’s factu al suf f iciency challen ge fails beca use the evidence is not so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict is clearly w rong or m anif estly un just, nor is th e v erdict against th e great w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence . Garz a’s secon d i s s u e is
ov er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON The Cl er k of thi s C our

t i s o rd ered to des ig nate Gar z a’s Sept ember

4, 2007 br ief as filed

. Hav ing ov er ru led Gar z a’s tw o i ss ues, the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment of co nv ic ti on and sent ence is aff ir med.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 4t h day

of June, 2009.