Opinion filed January 6, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

Nos. 11-09-00259-CR & 11-09-00260-CR

__________

RONNIE WAYNE EDWARDS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 21913 & 21914

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

The jury convicted Ronnie Wayne Edwards of aggravated assault1and aggravated 

kidnapping.2 The jury assessed his punishment for each offense at confinement for twenty years 

and a $10,000 fine. We affirm.

Issues on Appeal

In each case, appellant contends that the evidence is both legally and factually 

insufficient. Appellant argues that, because the victim testified that she was not in a state of fear 

 

1Cause No. 11-09-00259-CR.

2Cause No. 11-09-00260-CR.
2

and that appellant did not restrict her movements, the evidence is insufficient to support the 

convictions.

Standard of Review

We note at the outset of our analysis that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has now 

held in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim App. 2010), that there is “no meaningful 

distinction between the Jackson v. Virginia3legal-sufficiency standard and the Clewis

4

factualsufficiency standard”; that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the “only standard that a reviewing 

court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a 

criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt”; and that “[a]ll 

other cases to the contrary, including Clewis, are overruled.” Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 894, 902, 

912 (footnotes added). Accordingly, a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence is no 

longer viable. We also note that appellant did not have the benefit of the opinion in Brooks when 

this case was briefed. We will review appellant‟s factual sufficiency challenge under the legal 

sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia. Under this standard, we must review all of 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. 

Evidence at Trial

Texas Ranger Lancer Shane Morrow testified that, at 11:00 a.m., he was called by local 

law enforcement officers to a hostage situation inside a residence in Ranger, Texas. Appellant 

was sitting on the couch with the victim. He was holding a knife in his right hand to the victim‟s 

right abdominal area. Appellant had his left arm around the victim‟s back. In his left hand, he 

was holding another knife to the victim‟s left abdominal area. Ranger Morrow testified that the

victim was a paraplegic.

Ranger Morrow stated that appellant became “increasingly agitated and aggressive.” 

Appellant told Ranger Morrow that he was prepared to die but that he was going to kill the 

victim first if his demands were not met. Appellant wanted the charges pending against him in 

both Eastland and Stephens counties dropped. While appellant was talking, the victim was 

crying out for appellant to stop “poking” her and not to “cut” her. Appellant told the victim to 

 

3

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

4

Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 
3

“shut up” and be still or he would cut her. Ranger Morrow was concerned for the victim‟s safety 

and told appellant that he would try to help appellant. After Ranger Morrow called for a SWAT 

team, appellant surrendered the knives.

Ranger Morrow testified that, based on his experience, appellant was using deadly force 

and was interfering substantially with the victim‟s liberty. The entire situation lasted four hours. 

Electra Police Officer Brian Vest testified that, when he was previously employed by the 

Ranger Police Department, he was dispatched to the residence where appellant was holding the 

victim. When Officer Vest arrived, appellant yelled, “Get the „F‟ off my porch or I‟ll gut this 

bitch.” Officer Vest took appellant‟s threat seriously and called for backup. The officers entered 

the residence and saw that the victim‟s wheelchair was empty. The victim was on the couch with 

appellant. Appellant was holding a fillet knife to the victim‟s throat. When the officers raised 

their weapons, appellant said that he would “gut” the victim. The officers negotiated with 

appellant that they would lower their weapons if appellant would lower the knife.

Appellant was agitated and was talking about drug dealers. He requested that the media 

come to the residence so that he could talk about the corruption in Ranger. Appellant had a knife 

in each hand and was holding each knife against the victim. Appellant allowed the victim to go 

to the restroom but only if he escorted her. The entire episode lasted four hours.

Eastland County Deputy Sheriff Major Ben Yarbrough and Eastland County Deputy 

Sheriff Windell Light testified to substantially the same events as Officer Vest and Ranger 

Morrow.

Appellant called the victim as a witness. The victim testified that she and appellant had 

been living together for almost four years. She stated that they were having a disagreement. The 

victim stated that, when Officer Vest came into the house, he had his gun pulled and appellant 

was not holding a knife to her. The victim testified that she was “a little bullheaded” and would 

lose her temper at times. The victim believed that she and appellant would have settled their 

disagreement if the Ranger Police Department had not interfered.

Analysis

Ranger Morrow, Officer Vest, Deputy Yarbrough, and Deputy Light testified that 

appellant threatened the victim and restrained her movements by holding two knives to her 

abdomen. The victim denied that appellant had threatened her or restrained her movements. As 

the factfinder, the jury was the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses‟
4

testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.13 (Vernon 2007), art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979). 

The jury was free to accept or reject any or all of the various witnesses‟ testimony. When 

viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found that appellant 

committed both offenses. The evidence is legally sufficient to support both convictions. The 

sole issue is overruled in each case.

Holding

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

January 6, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.