### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00533- CR

Re ne Sot o He r nande z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 30305 17, H ONO RAB LE JON N. WIS SER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Rene Soto Hernande z was tried for mur der an d convicted of the lesser in c lu d e d o f

f e n s e o f ma

n s la u g h te r . See T ex. P en. Code Ann. § 19.04 ( West 2003). The cour t
a sse sse d p un ish me nt at ni ne te e n ye ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.

Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W. 2d 807 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1969).2 Appellant filed a

pro se br ief. In it, he challeng es the lega l and fa ctual suff iciency of the evidenc e, as s erts charg e er ror, a nd complains of the district cour t’s failure to hold a second p u n i s h m en th ea ri n g.

Appellant testified that he and hi s b ro t her, Joshua Br own, went to the a partment sh are d b y Rob e rt B e rr y and Jame s Da

vis to c oll e c t $1 00 the y be lie ve d B e rr y ha d s tol e n f

ro m th e ir mother. Ac cordingto appellant, B err y met them at the door a

nd said he ha d no intention of returning the money . Words were exchang ed, and B err y hit appellant with his fist. Appellant beg an to strike Be rry , who fe ll to the ground. Appellant kicked B err y sever al times, then Br own slammed B err y ’s head on the g round twice
. Acc ording to a ppellant, B rown wa

nted to shoot Ber

ry , but was re strained by appellant. Appe llant and B rown then le ft. Appellant testi fied that he considered the fig ht to be
a “ no rm a l” on e and

ha d n o id e a

tha t B e rr y ha d b e e n s e ri ou sly

inj ur e d unti l he re ad of hi s d e a th i n the newspa

per. Davis witnessed the assault and testified for the State. He sa id that appellant thre w the fi rs t pu

nc h, c a us ing B e rr

y to fa ll. Ap pe lla

nt t he n s tom pe d a nd kic ke d B e rr

y ’s he a d f or thi rt y to forty -five se conds while B rown he ld him down. Ber ry was unc onscious and g asping for a ir when t h e a s s au l ten d ed
. Be rry

l at er d i edi nt h e h o s p i t al fr o mb ra i ni n j u ri es s u s t ai n edi nt h e b ea t i n g. When t h e r e is a c h a ll e n g e to th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e to s u s ta in

a c r im in al conviction, the question pre sented is whethe r a rational trier of fact could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) ( l e g a l s u f f i c ie nc y ); Gr iffin v . S

tate , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 1981) (leg al
su ff ic ie nc y ); Zun iga v. State , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (fa ctual suff iciency ).3

I n a le g a l su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll the e vid e nc e is r e vie we d in the lig ht mos t favo ra

ble to the ve rd ic t; it is assumed that the t rier of fac t resolved conflicts i n the t estimony , weig hed the evidence , and dre w
re asonable infere nces in a manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff in , 6 1 4 S. W. 2 d

a t 1 5 9 ( c iting Jack son , 4 4 3 U
. S
. a t3 1 8
- 1 9 )
. In a f a c tu a l s u f f i c i e n c y r e v i e w , a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d e qu a l l y, including the testimony of defense witnesses and the exis tence of alter native hy potheses. Orona v. Sta te , 8 36 S.W. 2d

31 9, 32 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 92 , no pe t.)
. Al tho ug h due de fe re nc e sti ll mus t be a c c or de d th e fa c t f

ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio ns , p art ic ula rl y tho se c on c e rn ingthe we ig ht a nd c re dib ili ty of the e vid e nc e , th e re viewi ngc ourt may dis a g re e wi th t

he re su lt i n o rd e r t o p re ve nt a manif e st injusti ce. J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The evide nce w ill be deemed fac tually insufficient to sustain the conv i ction if the proof of guilt is too weak or

the contra

ry evidenc e is too strong to support a finding of g uilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga , 144 S.W .3d
a t 48 4- 85 ; see J

ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Appellant ar g ues that the evidenc e does not suppor t the jury ’s finding that he ac ted
rec klessly , that is, that he consciously disreg arde d a substantial a nd unjustifiable risk that his actions
wo u l d cause Be rry ’s death. SeeT e x. Pe n . Co d e A n n . § 6
. 0 3 ( c ) ( We s t 2 0 0 3 )
. H e a s s e rts th a t, at
m o s t , t h e ev i dence supports a findingof cr iminal neg lige nce. We disag ree . Applying the
a pp ro pr iate sta

nd ard s o f r e vie w, we ho ld t hat th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o
su pp or t th e jur y ’s de te rm inatio n th a t a

pp e lla nt, a c tin g a lon e or

a s a par ty wi th B ro wn , r e c kle ssl y
cause d Be rry ’s death. Pro se points of error one and two a

re ove rruled. Appellant conte nds the trial cour t should have in s t ru cted the jur y on the lesser i ncluded of

fense of neg lige nt homicide. Se e id . § 19.05. Appellant did not reque st such an4

instruction. No error is presented. Se e Po se yv . S tate , 966 S.W .2d 57, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Pro se point of err or four

is overrule d. Fi n ally , appellant c laims that he was de nied his rig ht to a fair a nd impartial ju d ge when the tr ial court re fused to conduc t a new punishment he ar i n g fo r t h e purpose of hear ing mit ig a tin g e vid e nc e . T his a pp e ars to b e a

re fe re nc e to t

he ame nd e d mo tio n f

or ne w t ri a l f ile d b y his orig inal counsel on a

ppeal, one gro u nd for whic h was trial c ounsel’s fa ilure to offe r mitigating evidenc e at the punishment stag e. The motion was not supported by aff idavit, a nd there is nothing in the rec ord b e f

o r e u s to s u g g e s t th a t th e r e w a s an y mi ti g a ti n g e v id e n c e to o f f e r . Pr o s e p o int of
err or three is overrule d.

We have r eviewe d the re cord, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief

. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: Oc tober 14, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh