1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Ju stice (Ret.), Sevent h Court of Appeals, s itting by

assignment . Tex. Gov ’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). NO. 07-02-0025 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 25, 2002

______________________________ ANTONIO DOW AN W ILSON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 252 ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON CO UNTY; NO. 83720; HON ORABLE LARRY GIST, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. 1 Appellant Antonio Dowan W ilson was convicted by ajury of aggravated assault and sentenced by the trial court to six years confinem ent in the Institutiona l Divi sion of the Departm ent of Crim inal Justice. In two issues, he challenges that conviction by arguing2

thatthe evidence was legall y and factuall y insu fficient to sustain his conviction. Disagreeing with appellant, we affirmthe judgm ent of the trial court. The standards by

which we review the legal an d factual suffi ciency of the evi dence are so w ell k now n th at it is not necessary for usto reiterate them

. See Jackson v. Vi rgini a, 443 U.S. 307, 31 9, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 56 0 (1979); Clewi s v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim .App. 1996). In m aking thatreview, w e m ust rem ember

tha t th e j ury

is the sole judge of

the credibi lity of th e witnesses and the weight to be given thei r testimony, and it may

accept or rej ect any part of that testimon y. Cain v

. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 n .4 (Tex.Crim .App. 1997). The cha rge in this case, which is not c hallenged o n appeal , allowed the jury

to find appellant guilty if he acted alone or with o thers as a party by intenti onall y, knowingly, or r eck less lycausing serious bodily injury to the victim by hitting him w ith his hand. A p ers on iscrim inally

res pon sibleas a pa rty to a n of fen se if itis c om m itte d by

his own conduct or by the conduct of another for w hich he is criminally responsible orboth. Te x. Pen. Code A nn. § 7.01(a) (Vernon 1994). A person is criminally responsible for the offense comm itted by the con duct of another if he acts w ith intent to promote or assist the com mission of the offense and sol icits, en co u rages, directs, aids, or attem pts to aid the other person to com mit theoffense. Id. § 7.02(a)(2). In determ ining the sufficiency of the evidence under the law of parties, the evidence is sufficient when theactor isphysic ally presentat the com mission of the o ffense and encourages the com mission by w ords or3

other agreem ent. Burdine v. State, 719 S.W. 2d 309, 315 (Tex.C rim.App. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 1590, 94 L.Ed.2d 779 (1987). In m aking that determ ination, the court m ay exam ine the events before, during, and after t he com mission of the offense and rely on act ions of the defendant, w hich show an understanding and com mon design to com mit the of fense. Id. Participation in an offe nse m ay be inferred from the circumstances. Beardsley v. State, 738 S. W .2d 681, 684 (Tex .Crim .App. 1987). Police Officer

Vicky Bordelon of the B eaumo nt Police Departm ent responded to a call on Septem be r 6, 2000, w ith respect to an altercation near the Plym outh Village A partments. She w

as flagged down by

the victim’ s m other and brother, w ho took th e of ficer to the ir ho m e. T her e sh e fo und thevictim , D err ick Ea glin, on abed covere d in blood. She called EMS , and later talked to a witness, Joseph Hillocks, who nam ed a m an known as

Fifth W ard as a participant. Derrick testified that he wen tto the Plym outh Village Apartme nts after school on the dayof the assault to give Josh Green a ride to an interview at the B eaumo nt Country Club whe re Der rick

w ork ed. De rric k w

as s ittin g in the car and Eric Wi lson walked up and swung at him, but m issed. Derrick then got out of the car to fight with Eric. Appellant, who goes by the nam e of

Fifth W ard, was also there, and Derrick testified that appellanttold him “it was going to be a one-on-one fight.” Derr ick sta ted tha t be for e heand Er icact ually hit each other, he looked to the side and appe llan t struck him with his hand, after which Derrick passed out. He woke upin a ditch, a nd Josh helped himout. H owe ver, appellant4

knocked him back into the ditch and th en went through his po ckets and asked for money. Josh h elped him outagain, and Joseph Hillocks drove him hom e. As a result of t he incident, he had double vision, was in a lot of pain, and cou ld not bite down. H is nose was also broken, and he had surgery to have a plate put under his eye. On cross-exa mination, Derrick adm itted that in the statem ent he gave to police, he did not name appellant as his assailant. He m ere ly s tat ed t hat he w as h itin the back of his head and blacked out. Healso failed to mention appellant’s alleged rem ark tha t i t w ould be a one-o n-o ne f ight or t hat app ellan t ha d kn ocked h im intoa ditch. Fur the r, in response to a que stio n, h e se em ed to ad m it th at h e re ally did not know who hit him that day. Howe ver, on redirect, he stated tha t m ore than one person j umped on him and that appellant was oneof them . Also, he lost several gold teeth and his cell phone during the i ncident. He later called his cell phone number and som eone who identified hims elf as Fifth W ard answered. Jos h Gr een tes tifie d th at w hen Der rick dro ve u p, E ric

and Derrick got

into a fight. He later pulled a man nam ed Alkin Savoy off of Derrick in the ditch. Savoy hit Derrick at least once on the side of the head. A fter Derrick got pulled outof the ditch, he indicated he wanted to swing at appell ant, and appel lant hi t him on his chin. However, i n Josh’s statem ent to police, he said that appellant hit Derrick in the nose. Sha wn Eaglin, Der rick’s mother, testified tha t Derrick’s nose wa s broken, his sinus cavities crushed, and he had to have a plate put in his head as a result of the fight. The5

doctors thought Der rick w ould lose his right eye at one point. The m edical bill s resulting from his injuries totaled $30,000. Detective Brian Skinner testified that he investigated the incident and, as a result, charges were filed against Alkin Savoy, Eric Wi lson, and appellant. Appellant contends that Der rick ’s sta tem ent

m ade to p olicecon tra dicted h is testimony

at trial because he never identified appellant to police and neglected to me ntion other facts that hetestified to a t tr ial. Furt her , ap pella nt a rgu es, Der rick adm itte d th at h is mem ory was better at the time of his statem ent than at trial. Moreover, th e testimon y of Josh Gre en o nly

corroborates that appell ant struck Derri ck once on the chin after Derri ck th re at en ed to hi t h i m. Additionally, appellant posits, no evidence was presented tha t he solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attem pted to aid the other all eged perpetr ators, Eri cW ilson and Alkin Savoy, in the com mission of the offense, and the re w as no connection and acquain tanceship sho wn between these persons. Appellant requested and received an instruction to the j ury on the lesser offense of ass ault and on self-defense, w hich the jury obv iously rejected. While the testimony of the victim at trial may have conflicted with his statem ent to police, those conflicts were for the jury to resolve. If the tes timony of t he victim w

as believed, W ilson comm enced the altercation at which appellant w as p res ent , ap pella nt h itthe victim w ith his fist after telling him it would only be a one-on-one f ight, and appellant later struck the victim aga in. Appellant also went through the vi ctim’s poc kets an d as ked for m one y. Dur ing t his sa me6

ti me period, there was testimony that Savoy s truck the victim as well. Further, there w as evidence of the loss of personal property and that t he victimsuffer ed seriousbodily inj ury as a re sult

of t he a lter

cat ion. Vie w ing t he e vide ncein t he lig ht mo st favorable to the prosecut ion, a rational trier of fact could have found that appellant, acting alone or i n concert, com mitted the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and tha t ve rdic

t is notso against the weight of all of the evidence as to be clearly wrong an d unjust. A ccordingl y, we overrule appellant’s issues and af firm the j udgme nt of th e tr ia l court. John T. Boyd Senior Justi ce Do not publish.