Opinion filed January 6, 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No s . 11

- 09

- 00 259

- C R & 11

- 09

- 00260

- CR

__________ RONNIE WAYNE EDWARDS , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 91 st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No s . 2 19 1 3 & 219 1 4

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 assault 1 and 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, bec ause the victim testified that she was not in a state of fear

1 Cause No. 11

- 09

- 00259

- CR.

2 C ause 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 Co urt 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 Jackso n v. Virginia 3 l egal

- sufficiency standard and the Clewi s 4 factual

sufficiency 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 eleme nt 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). According ly, 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. W e will review appellant ‟ s factual sufficiency challenge under the legal sufficiency stand ard 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 reasona ble 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 couc h 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 a nother knife to the victim‟s left abdominal area. Ranger Morrow tes tified that t he victim was a paraplegic. Ranger Morrow stated that appellant became “increasingly ag itated 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 s urrendered the knives. Ranger Morrow testified that, bas ed on his experience, appellant was using deadly force and was interfering substantially with the victim‟s liberty. The entire sit uation 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 ba ckup. 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 fil l et knife to the victim‟s throat. When the officers raised their weapons, appellant said tha t he would “gut” the victim. The officers negotiated with appellant that they would lower their weapons if appella nt would lower the knife. Appellant was agitated and was talking about drug dealers. He requested that the media
come to the residence so t hat 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.
Ea stland 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 ap pellant 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 testif ied 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 Depart ment had not interfered. Analysis Ranger Morrow, Officer Vest, Deputy Ya rbrough, and Deputy Light testified that appellant threatened the victim and restrained her movements by holding two kni v es 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. T EX

. C ODE C RIM . P RO C . A NN . 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.