## NO. 12-07-00317-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S
MARK ANTHONY BROWN, § APPEAL F ROM THE 217TH APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
TH E ST ATE OF TEX

AS, APP ELL EE § AN GE LI NA CO UN TY

, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Mark Anthony Brown a

ppeals his conviction for injury to a child. In one issue, A ppellant

arg ue s th a t hi s c on vic tio n w a s su pp orte d b y f a c tua lly ins uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e . W e a ff

ir m.
B ACKG ROUND At approximate ly 10:00 p.m. on August 15, 2005, a violent dispute eru p t ed b etwee n Appellant and Felicia

Flemmons. At t he ti me, Appellant and F lemmons had an ongoing nonmarital sexual relationship, and it was not unusual for Appellant to sleep a t Flemmons ’s re sidence . During the dispute, Appellant physica lly assaulted Flemmons a nd also injured K.K., Flemmons’s thirteen ye ar o ld s on , b y s tr iki ng him in the he a d w ith a

c ow bo y b oo t. Appellant wa s arr ested a nd char g ed by indictment with injury to a child. The jury f ound Appellant guilty, and the trial c ourt asses s e d h is punishment as imprisonment for two year s, probated for f our yea rs, and a $500 fine. This appe al followed.

F A C TUA L S UF FI CI E NCY I n his sole issue, Appellant contends that the evidence was not fac tually sufficie nt to support his conviction for injury

to a child. More spe cifica lly , Appellant ar g ues that the S tate’s evidence was fac tually insufficient to support a f inding that Appe llant struck K.K. with a boot. As limit ed by the indictment, the State had to pr ove that Appellant cause d bodily injury to K .K., a child four teen y ear s2

of ag e or young er, by

striking K.K . with a boot. See T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN
. § 22.04(a) (3) ( Ver non 2003) (se tting for

th the pertinent e lements of the a lleg ed off ense)

. Stand ard of Review I n conducting a fa ctual suff iciency revie w of the evidence, we consider a ll of the evidenc e weig hed by

the jury that tends to prove the ex i s t en ce of the fa ct in dispute and compa re it to the evidenc e that tends to disprove that fa ct. See Sant e lla n v . St ate , 9 39 S.W. 2d

15 5, 16 4 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997). A ve rdict will be set aside “only if the evide nce suppor

ting guilt is so obviously

weak, or th e c o n tr a r

y e v id e n c e s o o v e r

w h e lm in g ly o u tw e ig h s th e s u p p o rti n g e v id e n c e , a s to r e n d e r the conviction clea

rly wrong and manifestly unjust.” Or tiz v . St ate , 93 S.W .3d 79, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A c lear ly

wrongand manife stly

unjust verdic t occur s wher e the jury ’s findi ng “shocks the conscie nce” or “clear ly demonstrates bias.” Zuni ga v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 477, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Although w e ar e author ized t o d i s agr ee w ith the jury ’s deter mination, even if probative evidenc e exists t hat supports the ver dict, see Cle wis v . St ate , 922 S.W .2d 126, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), our e valuation should not substantially intrude upon the jury ’s role as the sole judg e of the

w e ig h t an d c r e d ib il it

y o f w it n e s s te stimony

. S antellan , 9 39 S.W. 2d a t 16 4. Whe re the re is conflicting evidenc e, the jury ’s verdict on such m atters is g ener ally reg arde d as conc lusive. Dudley

v . St ate , 2 05 S.W. 3d

82 , 8 9 ( Te x. Ap p. –T y le r 2 00 6, no pe t.)

. We c a nn ot d e c lare that a c on fl ic t in the evidenc e re nders the evidenc e factually insufficient sim ply beca use we disag ree with the jury ’s resolution of the c onflict. See Wa tso n v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A

succe ssful fac tual sufficie ncy challeng e will result in a re versa l of the convic tio n challenge d and

rema nd of the c ase f

or a ne w trial. See id. at 414. Discussion The State pre sented e vidence from four witnesses at tria l, F le mm o n s , K .K., and two membe rs of the Luf kin Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt, Of

fi c e r B ra nd on John so n an d Commu nic a tio ns Sup e rv iso r K e ith Bic kley . I n addition, the State introduced as exhibi ts pictures take n of K.K.’ s head a fter the incident and a r ecor ding of Fl em m o n s ’s t elephone call to the police. A ppellant testified, but pre sented no oth e r w itn e sse s and

int ro du c e d n o e xhibi ts. K. K. te sti fi e d th a t he wa s awake ne d b y the a rgume nt b e tw e e n App e lla nt a nd F le mmo ns
.3

K. K. e nte re d th e liv ing ro om a nd tol d Ap pe lla nt to le a ve the re sid e nc e
. He state d that Ap pe lla nt h it him in t he he a d w itha

c owbo y boot and th at th e blo w r e su lte d in a kn ot o n h is h e a d, wh ic h hur t. Flemmons testified that K.K . was a wake ned and e ntere d the living r oom. Acc ording to her, K.K

. stepped be tween he r and A ppellant. She stated that Appellant hit K.K. in the hea d with a cowboy boot and that a knot re sulted on K.K.’s he ad. Officer J ohnson testified that he obser ved and photog raphe d a knot on K.K.’ s head. The pictures we re a lso entere d in t o ev i dence . He f urther te stified that, when the police appre hended Appellant that nig ht, he had “ boots with him .” F inally , Supervi s o r Bickley testified as to the

acc urac y of the tele phone re cordingof F lemmons, which was a dmitte d in to e v id e nce. T hat re cording

was c onsistent with Flemmons’s testimony

. Appellant testi fied as the s ole witness for the defe nse. He stated that he ha d been f orce d out of th e ho me by

F le mmo ns , K .K ., a nd

F le mmo ns ’s da

ug hte r. Ac c or din g to A

pp e lla nt, on c e thi s forc ing out be g an, he r etre ated a nd ran a way . He de nied eve r striking K.K. with a c owboy boot, but admitted that he owne d boots simi lar to the one s descr ibed. I t was uncontrove rted that Appe ll an t o wn ed a pair of cow boy boots. K.K. and F lemmons both testified that Appellant st ruck K.K. with a cow boy boot and that K.K. suff

ere d an injury

in the form of a knot on his head. The inj u ry wa s v er i fied by the testimony

of Off icer J ohnson, who observe d the knot and photog raphe d it. The only direc tly contra ry evidenc e wa s t h e t es t i mony of Appellant, who of

fer ed no explanation for how K .K. was injure d. Appellant ar g ues that the overa ll pictur e painted by the evidenc e is that Fle mmons fabricated the alleg ati o n s aga i n s th i m an d t h at K. K. wa s m er el y

“s u p p o rt i n g h i s m o th er ’s s el f- i n t erested ac count of eve nts.” Acc ording to Appellant, the testimony of F lemmons showed th e b i as re sulting in her allegations aga inst Appellant (for instanc e, her admission that, on a previous occ asion, she had

a tta c ke d App e lla

nt w itha kn if

e ) a nd wa s mo re e la

bo ra te tha n K .K .’ s, sh ow ingK. K. ’s re luc tanc e to testify to a story he knew to be false. Appellant also points out what he pe rce ives as an inc onsistency in the testimonies of Flemmons and K.K. S pecif ically , Appellant points out that Flemmons testified K. K. ste pp e d b e tw e e n h e r a nd Ap pe lla nt, bu t K.K . tes tif

ie d o nly that he wa s in

the ro om a

nd tol d Appellant to leave . Finally , Appellant argues he had no r eason to strike K .K. bec ause he was lea ving and K.K. w as “me rely

standing there .”4

Our evaluation should not substantially intrude upon the jury ’s role a s the sole judg e of the weig ht and cr edib i l i t y o f witness testimony

. Sant ellan , 9 39 S.W. 2d

a t 16 4. Whe re the re is conflicting evidenc e, the jury ’s verdict on such m atters is g ener ally reg arde d as conc lusive. Dudley , 2 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d

a t8 9

. K

. K

. ’ s t e s t i m o n y d o e s n o t , a s a c o l d r e c o r d , s h o w an y r e l u c t a n c e t o t e s t i f y. I ns te a d, his te sti mony a

pp e a rs ind ic a tiv e of a y oung a nd ina rt ic ulate bo y wh o w a s n e rv ou s b e c a us e he had to testify i n co u rt

. Ba sed upon our r eview of the re cord, w e conc lude that Appellant’ s arguments are not sufficient to under mine the jury

verdict b as ed upon the testimony of K.K., Flemmons, and O ffice r Johns on. See Sant ellan , 9 39 S.W. 2d

a t 16 4; Dudley , 205 S.W .3d at 89. Af te r c on sid e ri ng a ll of the e vid e nc e , we ho ld that the e vid e nc e su pp or tin g g uil t w a s n ot s o obviously weak, or the c ontrary

evidenc e so strong , as to rende r the c onvict i o n clearly wrongand manifestly

u n j u s t

. T h er ef

o re , t h e e v i d en ce wa s fa ct u al l y s u ff i ci en tt o s u

p p o rt Appellant’s c onviction. See Or tiz , 93 S.W .3d at 87. We overr ule Appellant’ s sole issue.

D I S P OS I T I ON We af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

JA M ES T. WOR THEN Chief J ustice
Opinion delivere d J une 25, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)