NO. 07-06-0247-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY

17, 2007

______________________________ ALBINO ROSEN DO SOTO, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 106 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F GARZA COUN TY; NO. 05-2280; HON. CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT , PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Albino Rosendo Soto (a ppellant)appeals his convicti on for assault-famil y viol ence. Via two iss ues, he contends that the evidence is legally and factually insuff icient to support his co nvic

tion. We affirm. Background On February

22, 2005, appellant

was li ving with Bel inda Clifton, hi s girlfriend. They had been arguing most of the day and after serv ing h im din ner th e arg uing becameviolent.2

He threw “his plate”at her and then hi t her. She began scr eaming, at w hich point appel lant began “choking [her].” The victim further testified that after appellan t struckher “ . . . in the head, [she] . . . couldn’t focus . . . [or] see” since all “ was black .” So too did she see “like starburstsin front of [her] e yes . . . [a]nd . . . told [appellant that she] could n’t see.” Appellant

also grabbed her head and “slamm [ed] . . . it . . . back and forth.” Pictures were later introduced i nto evidence memorializ ing the brui ses on the v ictim caused fro m the assault. On cross, defense counsel pointed out inconsistenc ies betw een the statement Belinda gave the police and her testimony at trial. She further admitted to being on d rugs for seven day

s prior to the assault and s eeing people al legedly looking i n the window

. Issues One and

Two - Suf

ficiency of the Evidence The applicable s tandards of rev iew appear in Jackson v. Vi

rginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) and Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. C rim. App. 2006). We refer the parties to those cases. Appearing of record is the testimony of Belinda not only

identifying appellant as her boyfriend and the on e who assaul ted her but als o describing the manner in w hich the assault occurred and its effects. It constitute d some evidence upon which a rational t rier of fact could find, bey

ond a reasonable do ubt, th a t appellant intentiona lly and knowingly caused bodily i njury to Belinda by hitting and choking her. T EX
. P EN
. C ODE A NN
. §22.01 (Vernon Supp. 2006) (def ining the offense of assault). As for appellant’ s attempt to disc redit the v ictim by showing that she had been on drugs and illustrating inconsistencies between her te stimony and statement, this3

information was far from overwhelming ly unfavor able to the jur

y’s verdict. Nor wasthe evidence of appellant’s g uilt weak ; rather, amplee xis ted if the juror s opted to belie ve it. And, it was for the jurors, as opposed to this court, to resolve doub ts in testim ony and select who to beli eve. Marg raves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (stating that the jurors have the obligation to resolve credibility disputes). Thus, w e hold thatthe v

erdi ct h as t he su ppor

t of b oth legall y and factuall y sufficient ev idence and overrule the issues. The judgment of the trial court i s affirmed.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish

.