### NUM BER 13-08- 0008 5-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
JU A N M IGUE L TOR RES , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt o f W illacy C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es R o d rig u eza n d G arza

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Juan Mi g uel Torre s, w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, a s e cond-deg re e felony

. SeeT EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 02( a) -( b) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. A j ur y co nv icted a ppel lan t of both co unt s, a n d appel lan t w as sent enced to tw o y ears’ inc arcerati on in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (“ TDC J- ID ”)for th e f irs t count and ei g ht y ears’ i ncarcerati on for the
sec ond count. The pr is on te rms w ere ordered to r un c oncur re ntl y . On ap peal , app ell antT est i m onyatt r i al est abl i shed t hat t he g r oup cal l ed i t sel f“M y B l ock, ” but gr oup m em ber s den i ed t hat 1

“ M y Bl ock” was a cr i m i nal st r eet gan g.

P a tro l S u p e rv i s o r M a rc e l i n o F l o re s , th e n a n i n v e s ti g a to r w i th th e R a y m o n d v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a rtm e n t, 2 i dent i f i ed t he o ccupant s of t he ca r s as R ober t Vasquez , G i l ber t Vasquez , N i na G uz m an, M ar t i n Ver a, N oe T or r es, G uadal upe R am i r ez , R ol ando M endoz a, G eor ge M endoz a, and appel l ant

. Lat ert est i m onyr ev eal ed th a t s e v e r a l o th e r s w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e s c e n e a n d in v o lv e d in th e f ig h t, in c lu d in g D a v id a n d K e n n y V illa , C h r is G uz m an, and an i ndi v i dual i dent i f i ed a s “ C asper . ” O nl y t he m al es i n bo t h gr oups par t i ci pat ed i n t he f i ght

. T he fe m a l e s i n b o th g ro u p s w a tc h e d th e fi g h t fro m a fa r. 2 arg ues that: ( 1) the ev ide nce suppo rt ing his conv icti ons is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent; and ( 2) the tr ial co urt er re d i n ov er ru li ng hi s moti on to s uppress and abuse d i ts dis creti on i n ad mi tt i ng s ta te me nt s ma de b y a pp el l an t to p ol i c e. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND The under ly ing offenses per tai ned t o a f ig ht t hat t ra nspi re d on Dec ember 28, 2006. On the ev eni ng in q uest ion , Samuel Gar z a, Irene Sanc hez , Er in Rod ri g uez , G re g Lee Ram irez , Rudy Loy a, Ed uard o And rade , and Max Grimaldo w ere ba rbecu ing at Loya’s apar tment in Ray mondv il le, Tex as. G ri maldo tes ti fied at tr ial that dur ing the bar becue , he
re cei v ed a cal l from appel lan t and his brother , Noe Torres, threateni ng to “fuck [hi m] up. ” Gr imal do di d notthi nk anythi ng of the t ele phone c all , and the bar becue co nti nued. Late r th a t even in g, th e gro u p , refe rre d to a t tria l a s “My Bl o ck ,” le f t t h e ap a rt m e n t o n fo o t t o go 1 home. A w hite Che v rolet Malibu occu pied byse v eral gir ls drov e pa st the g roup as the My Bl ock members walk ed home. As the Mal ibu drov e by , t he g ir ls sh outed obsc eni ti es at t he g ro up. Sev eral My

Bl ock m embers shout ed obscen it ies back at the gi rl s in the M ali bu, a nd the My Block me mb ers su bseque ntly cut throu gh a f ield nea r th e “Charter Scho ol” to avoid
a n y f u rt h e r c o n f ro n t a t io n s . Sh o rt ly t h e re a f t e r, t h e Ma li b u a n d a n o t h e r c a r, a b ro wn C a d i l l a c , s u r ro u n d e d t h e g ro u p . T h e o c c u p a n t s g o to u to f t h e c a rs a n d b e g a n w a lk ing tow ard the M y

Bl ock members, throw ing roc ks as they approache d the m. Ac cordin g to 2Loy a an d sev er al ot herM y Bl ock m em ber s t est i f i ed t hat t heydi d no t desi r e t o f i ght app el l ant and 3 h i s frie n d s .

In v e s tig a to r F lo r e s te s tif ie d th a t b a s e d o n h is la w e n f o r c e m e n t e x p e r ie n c e , a k n i f e i s a d e a d ly 4 w e a p o n th a t c a n c a u s e s e r io u s b o d ily in j u r y. 3 Grimald o, severa l o f

t h e rocks struck My

Block me mb ers. Rodrigueztestif ied th at on ce the y stopp ed th row ing rocks at th e My Block me mb ers, the car occup ant s told on e of their
me mb ers to get a pipe or some othe r w eap o n . Rodrig uez note d tha t the My Block members w ere s ev erely outn umbered and that a fig ht en sued. 3 Several w itnesse s state d tha t the f ighting laste d f iv e or six m inute s, butthe en tire confro ntati on l ast ed th ir ty to forty min utes . Garz a testi fied that the car occ upants st arted the fig ht an d tha t he w as attac ked by se v eral peopl e, i ncl udi ng appel lan t. Gar z a not ed th at he rec eiv ed c uts on h is ar m and a sta b wound on the si de of hi s b ody

. Gar z a recal led that
a p p e l l a n tu s e d a kn ife t o cu th is a rm a n d t h a tNo e st a b b e d h im in t h e si d e o f h is b o d y. 4 Grimal do t es ti fi ed t ha t he w as a tt ac k ed b y s ev eral d i fferen t pe op l e, i nc l ud i ng R obert Vasq uez , G il ber

t Va sq uez , and R ola ndo M endoz a. Gr imal do f urther testi fied that R ola ndo brou ght a knife to th e f ight a nd tha t Roland o used thatknife to sta b him in the side of his body

. As a re sul t of thei r sta b wounds and cut s, Gar z a and Gr imal do w ere hos pit ali z ed for
sev eral day s. At trial, the State called m ost of the MyBlock me mb ers to test if y abo ut the f ight. All of the w it ness es tes ti fied th at Gri maldo and Garz a w ere stabbed dur ing the fig ht an d tha t t h e f ig h t h a d o c c u rr e d in a d im ly li tf ie ld , wh ic h li m it e d vis ib il it y. On ly G ri m a ld o a n d G a rza re cal led se ein g kn iv es bei ng us ed by the car oc cupan ts

. Fur

ther more, se v eral of the
w it ness es test ified that theydid notrecal l that any w eapons w ere us ed dur ing the fig ht an d that they bel iev ed th e fig ht was sol ely a fis t fig ht. R odr ig uez , howev er , s tated thatsh e s aw one of the car

oc cupan ts usi ng a w eapon “ li ke a s ti ck .” I n a n y e v ent, after Noe st abbedT hi s i nt er v i ew was v i deot aped, and t he v i deot ape was adm i t t ed i nt o ev i dence at t r i al wi t hout 5 obj ect i on. 4 Gar z a, t he g ro ups dis persed and t he M y Bl ock members a sk ed a loc al re si dent to c all for hel p. Pol ic e i nv est ig ati ng the sc ene found poo ls of blo od and a blo ody shi rt at t he s cene. No w eapons w ere found. The foll ow ing day , appel lan t v olu ntar il y w ent to t he R ay mondv il le pol ic e s tati on to g iv e a s tatementabout w hat occ ur re d that nig ht. Appel lan t w as int er v iewed on Dec ember 29, 200 6, at 1:1 0 p.m . Prior to q uest ioning app ellant , police read ap pellan t his Mi ra nda 5 ri g hts , and appel lan t i nit ial ed th e doc ument ex pla ini ng the Mi ra nda ri g hts

. See gen erally Mi ra nda v . Ar izona , 384 U .S. 436 (1966 ). Dur ing the int er v iew , appell ant admitt ed that he had a kni fe t hat ev eni ng and that he broug ht the kni fe to the fig ht. Appel lan t al so sta ted that he c o u l d n o tre a d

. R a y mo n d v i l l e P o l i c e D e p a rt me n tP a t ro l S u p e r v i s o r M a rc e l ino Flores testif ied th at he w as aware th at app ellantcould no t read b ut th at he w as un aware that appel lan t al leg edl y co uld not w ri te. H ow ev er , F lores noted that he as ked appe ll ant
w hether he u ndersto od th e Mi

ra nda rig hts th at w ere r e a d to him , and app ellanttold him tha t he un dersto od h is rig hts an d sub sequen tly initialed th e do cum entex plainin g his rig hts. Fl ores als o tes ti fied th at i n the i nter v iew , app ell ant l ater

deni ed us ing a w eapon at the fig ht
a n d a c c u s e d Ro la n d o o f b ri n gi n g a kn ife t o t h e f ig h t

. Ap p e ll a n t t o ld F lo re s t h a t“we ga ve all of our stuf f to Nina an d w e w ere expecting to ha v e a clean f ight.” On S eptember

13, 2007, a ppel lan t, among othe rs , w as ind icted o n two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ass aul t for the i nju ri es sus tai ned by Gri maldo and G arz a dur ing the fig ht. Bot h
coun ts provi d e d t h a t app ellantand the ot hers “inten tiona lly , knowing [ly], or recklessly
cause [d] serious bod ily injury to” Grimald o and Garza by “a dea dly w eap on, to w it: a sharpP rio r to tri a l , t h e S ta te a m e n d e d th e i n d i c tm e n t b y s tri k i n g th e w o rd “s e rio u s ” b e fo re “b o d i l y i n ju ry.” 6 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.02 (a)(2) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 5 ins tr ument, dur ing the commi ss ion of sai d as saul t .

. . . ” 6 Appel lan t’ s c ase w as lat er sev ered from the c ases of his co -d efendants, and the t ri al court, on Octo ber 18 , 200 7, con duct ed a hea ring on a ppe llant’s oral m o t io n to sup press all of the s tatemen ts he made to pol ic e dur ing hi s D ecember 29, 2006 i nter

v iew

. At t he hea ring, appellan t argued th at be cause he is una ble to read an d w rite, his w aiver of his Mi ra nda r ig hts w as done unkno w ing ly and inv olu ntar il y ; t herefore, all of the s tatement s h e made to pol ic e s h o u ld be s uppress ed. The tr ial co urt den ied appel lan t’ s o ra l moti on to supp ress and set the case for trial. Tri al commenc ed on Oct ober 3 0 , 2 0 0 7. After both par ti es re ste d, t he j ur

y w as charg ed reg ardin g the law for as saul t, ag g ra v ated ass aul t, and t he l aw of par ti es. N eit her the S ta te n or

a pp el l an t ob

j ecte d to t he l an g ua g e c on ta i ne d i n th e c ha rg e. Th e j ury subs eq uentl y

co nv icted a ppel lan t of both co unts of ag g ra v ated ass aul t. F or the firs t c ount perta ining to the a gg rav ate d assa ult of Grimaldo , the jury

sente nced app ellantto tw o y ears’ inc arcera ti on i n the TDC J- ID w it h no fine, a nd for the s econd co unt p ertai nin g to the aggravated a ssault o f

Garz a, th e jury

se nte nced a ppe llant to eight y ears’ incarcerat ion in t h e T DCJ-ID w ith no f ine. T he trial cou rt mad e a f inding as to bo th cou nts th at a de adly
w eapon was used in the c ommis si on of the offenses , and it ordered th e s entenc es to r un c o n c u rr e n t ly. On N ov ember

27, 2007, appel lan t fil ed a motio n for newtri al, arg uin g thatthe tr ial court ha d erred in de nying his o ra l motio n to sup press an d tha t the adm ission of his sta tements made t o p o lic e neg ati v ely i mpacte d the j ur

y ’s v erdict. The tr ial co urt den iedAppel l ant st at es i n hi s app el l at e br i eft hat hi s counsel m ov ed t he t r i al cour t t o i ssue f i ndi ngs o ff act 7 and concl usi ons o fl aw as t o t he vo l un t ari ness o fhi s st at em ent s m ade t o po l i ce an d t hat t hi s m ot i on was ser v ed o n t he St at e; howev er , t he r ecor d do es not cont ai n any m ot i ons f i l ed by appel l ant r equest i ng f i ndi ngs of f ac t a nd c on cl us i on s of l aw . 6 appel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial , and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. III . A P P E LL A NT ’ S S TA TE MENT S T O P OL I CE A ND M OT I ON TO S U PPRESS In hi s t hird i ss ue, a ppel lan t as ser ts that the t ri a l co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s o ra l moti on to su ppress bec ause the e v ide nce demonst ra ted t hat h e w as ill it e ra te an d inc apabl e of

unders tandi ng the w aiv er of his ri g hts

. As suc h, ap pel lan t c ontends thathe
w aived his ri ghts unkn owi ngly and involuntarilyand thatthe sta tem ent s he m ade to police shoul d hav e been su p press ed. Appel lan t req uest s t hat t his C our t aba te t he appe al and direct the trial court to ma ke f indings of fact an d con clusi o n s of law on the v olun tarine ss of app ellant ’s statem ent s to police. T he State argues thatapp ellantfailed to preserve this 7 issue for app eal an d tha t the trial court did notabu se its discretion in ad mitt ing appe llant’s sta tements to pol ic e i nto e v ide nce. A . A pp licab le L aw To p re se rve a compl ain t for our rev iew , a par

ty musthav e present ed to the tr ial
cour t a ti mely re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on th at s tates the spec ificg ro unds for th e des ired
ru li ng i f they

are notapparent from the cont ext of the re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) (1 ); Mo sley v. State , 983 S.W .2d 249, 26 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ( op. on reh’ g ). M oreov er , t he tr ial courtm usthav e rul ed on the req uest , obj ect ion , or moti on, eithe r ex pressly or implicitly , or the com plainin g party must ha v e objected to the t rial court’s
re fu s a l t o r ule

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) (2 ); Me ndez v. Sta te , 1 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004)

. Fi nal ly , the complai nt made on appeal must compor t w it h the compl ain t7

made in the tr ial cour

t or the er ro r is forfeit ed. Hei del ber g v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 5 35, 5 37 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ; Bel l v. State , 938 S.W .2d 35, 54 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 1 9 9 6 ); R ezac v. State , 782 S.W .2d 869 , 870 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90). B. Discuss ion In t his ca se, the record does not co ntai n a req uestfil ed by appel lan t mov ing the tr ial court to issue f indings o f f a c ta n d conclusio ns of law regarding the v olun tarine ss of his sta tements made t o pol ic e. Howev er , t he T ex as Cour t of Cri minal Appea ls has st ated that
arti cl e 38. 22, s ect ion 6 of the co de of c ri minal procedu re impos es a mandator y duty on t he tr ial co urt t o fil e w ri tten findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law w hen t he v olu ntar ine ss of
a s tatementi s c hal len g ed. See State v . Ag uil ar , N o. P D- 059- 09, 2 009 Tex . C ri m. App. LEX IS 1 54, a t * *1- 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. M ar . 11, 2009) (per cu ri am) (n ot de si g nated for p u b lic a ti o n ) (ci ti n g Ur

ias v. Sta te , 155 S.W .3d 1 41, 1 42 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ; W icker v. State , 740 S.W .2d 7 79, 7 83 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1987) ); see als o T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.22, § 6 (V er non 200 5)

. Here , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d n o t i s s u e fi n d i n g s o f fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f lawas to
w het h e r a p p ellantv olun tarily w aived his Mi

ra nda ri g hts

. Ordin ar il y , w e woul d abat e the app eal and rem and t he cause t o the t rial cou rt, d irecting it to issue w ritten f indings of fact and c oncl usi ons of law

as to the v olu ntar ine ss of the chal len g ed s tatement

. Se e Agui lar , 200 9 T ex. C r i m. Ap p. LE X IS 15 4, at * 2. H ow ev er , th e tr i al c ou rt’ s fai l ure to i s s ue su ch findi ngs is not dis posi ti v e to thi s a ppeal bec ause appel lan t fail ed to obj ectat tr ial to the admis si on of the v ide otape document ing the sta tements he made to pol ic e. W h e n t h e S tate prof

fered the videota pe for inclusion in th e record, app ellant ’s8

coun sel state d tha t he had “ no objectio n” to the adm ission of the evidence ; the trial court adm itted the videota ped state me nts into ev iden ce, and t he videota pe was play ed b efore the j ury . See Holm es v. State , 248 S.W .3d 194 , 200 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08); Mo r a g u ez v. State , 701 S.W .2d 902 , 904 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86) (“[W ]he n the d efend antaf f irmatively
ass erts dur ing tr ial he h as ‘no obj ect ion ’ to t he admi ss ion of the c omplai ned of ev ide nce, he w aiv es any

er ro r in th e admi ss ion of the e v ide nce despi te t he pre- tr ial r uli ng [on a moti on to su ppress ].” ); Har ri s v . St ate , 656 S .W .2d 4 81, 4 84 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 3); se e als o Per ez v. Sta te , No

. 1 3
- 0 8
- 2 9 6
- CR , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 1 4 3 7 , a t*2 3 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti F eb. 2 6, 20 09, pet. ref’d ) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) (“ W hen ev ide nce is offered duri ng tri al and defense co unsel aff ir mati v ely represent s t hat he has ‘ no obj ect ion ’ to ev ide nce, any er ro r in th e a d m issi on of the ev ide nce is w aiv ed even if the error had b e e n p re vio usly prese rv ed b y a supp ression m otion and adverse
ru li ng .” ); Her

ro n v . St ate , No

. 0 3
- 0 7
- 0 0 6 4 5 -C R, 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 7 2 3 1 , a t*6 (T e x. App.–A u st in S e pt. 26, 2 008, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( “W hen app ellant ’s w ritten sta tem ent w as of fered in evidence by

the St ate at trial (State’s exhibit 9) , app ell ant’ s c ounse l sta ted t hat h e had no obj ect ion

. By so st ati ng , couns el w aiv ed any
er ro r in the t ri al cour

t’ s o v er ru li ng of the mot io n t o s uppress and forfeited the r ig ht t o compl ain on a ppeal thatthe sta tement w as er ro neous ly admi tted. ”). T h u s, we hol d tha t appel lan t fail ed to preser v e thi s c omplai nt for our re v iew , and w e ov er ru le his thi rd i ss ue. III . L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In his f irst two issues, app ellantconte nds th at th e evidence supp orting his
conv icti ons is leg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent. Spec ific all y , app ell ant a rg ues that: ( 1) the
ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial di d not p ro ve that he ai ded and abetted i n the as saul t on9

Gr imal do; a nd ( 2) the Stat e did not p ro v e tha t he ass aul ted G arz a w it h a d eadl y w eapon. T he St ate coun ters by arguing that the evidence dem onst rated tha t app ellant : (1) w as a par ty to the ag g ra v ated ass aul t of Gr imal do and Gar z a; ( 2) kn ew

of the g ro up’ s i ntentto sta b Gr imal do; a nd ( 3) i ntended to aid the g ro up i n the as saul ts. 1. A pp licab le L aw In c onducti ng a leg al suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew the re lev ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether a ra ti onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of t h e c rim e beyond a re asona ble doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W .3 d 9, 13 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (1 979) ); Esc am il

la v. State , 143 S.W .3d 814 , 817 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). T he trier of fact is the sol e j udg e o f the facts , t he c re dib il ity of the w it ness es, and the weig ht g iv en to tes ti mony . SeeT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S. W .3d 1 48, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 th D is t.] 2000, pet. ref’d)

. W e do not
re e va lu a t e t h e we ig h ta n d cr e d ib il it y o f t h e e vid e n c e , n o r d o we su b s t it u t e o u r o wn jud g ment for the t ri er

of fact. Ki

ng v . St ate , 29 S.W .3d 556 , 562 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 0); Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. In st e a d , we cons ide r w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal deci si on. Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine
w het her the evidence is so w eak that the jury ’s v erdict seems clearly w rong and m anifestly unj u stor ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6). Th is Court w ill n ot reverse the jury’ s v erdict unl ess w e c an s ay w it h some object iv e basis in the record tha t t he g re at w eig ht an d10

preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. Id. at 417. Both leg al and fact ual suff ic ien cy are meas ured by

the ele ments of the offense as defined by a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi

v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f’d) . U n d er

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, a person commi ts the o ffense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t i f he commi ts ass aul t and ca use s s er iou s b odi ly i nju ry to another

or uses or ex hib it s a deadl y w eapon dur ing the c ommis si on of the ass aul t. See T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 2 2

. 0 2 ( a )

. A p e rs o n co m m it s t h e o f fe n s e o f a s s a u ltif

h e : (1 ) i n t e n t io n a ll y, knowingl y , o r re c k le ssly cause s bod ily

injury to ano the r; (2) inten tiona lly or know ingly threatens anot her

w it h i mminentbodi ly

i nju ry ; or

( 3 ) intenti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

makes phy si cal co ntact w it h anot her that is offensi v e or prov ocat iv e. See i d. § 22 .01( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2008)

. T h e S t a t e is n o t re qu ir e d t o p re s e n td ir e c te vid e n c e , su c h a s e ye wit n e s s t e s t im o n y, to es tabl is h g uil t. See G uevar a v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex. C ri m. App. 200 4). “C ircums tanti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as direct ev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of the acto r, and circum stan tial evi den ce alon e can be suf f icient to estab lish g uilt.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. The law does notreq uire tha t eac h fact “p oin t direct ly and ind ependent ly to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as lon g as the cumul ati v e effectof all the incrimin ating facts is suf f icient to supp ort the conviction.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. 2. The Aggrav ated A

ssa ult of

Garza The record c ontai ns tes ti mony from s ev eral w it ness es w ho s tated thatappel lan t and11

the othe r occupa nts of

the cars m ade m ena cing com me nts and surround ed th e My Block members on t he ni g ht i n q uest ion

. Afterwards, appel lan t and the other oc cupan ts of the
c a rs t hrew rocks at the My Block me mb ers, w hich, a s Grimaldo note d in his testim ony, str uck se v eral of the M y

Bl ock members. Gar z a tes ti fied th at he sa w

appel lan t approach him w it h a k nife. In ad dit ion , dur ing the c ourse of the fig ht, appel lan t c ut G arz a’s ar m w it h the kni fe, caus ing hi s a rm to bl eed. Later , N oe s tabbed Gar z a i n the si de w it h the kn ife, w hic h c aus ed Ga rz a to ble ed profusely

. Sev eral photog ra phs of Garz a’s i nju ri es were a d m itted i nto e v ide nce. Investigator Flores described Garz a’s injuries as cuts to his arm and a stab w oun d to his si de. He noted that, bas ed on his in ves ti gat ion and h is ex per ien ce as a c ri me sc ene investig ato r, these injuries w ere cause d by som eon e’s use of a knife an d tha t a knife is a deadl y w eapon. F urther more, sev eral w it ness es to t he fig ht ob ser v ed appe ll ant a nd N oe attac k G arz a, bu t onl y

Gar z a tes ti fied th at a kni fe w as used to c ut an d s tab h im. I n hi s st a t e me n t s to p o l i c e , a p p e l l a n ta d mi t t e d h a v i n g a k n i fe a n d b r i n g i n g t h e k n i fe to t he s cene of t he fig ht. Howev er , he lat er sta ted that he left t he k nife w it h Guz man pr ior t o f ig h t in g; h e d id n o tu s e a kn ife i n t h e f i g h t ; a n d No e go tt h e kn ife u s e d t o st a b G a rza from R ola ndo. Inv est ig ator F lores stat ed that no kni v es w ere found at the c ri me sc ene and that appel lan t’ s c lot hin g w as not s tai ned w it h Gar z a’s bl ood. T he a ppa rent inco nsisten cy between Ga rza a n d app ellant ’s testimo ny w as w ithin the p ro v inc e of the jur

y to re sol v e. See La ncon v. State , 25 3 S. W .3 d 69 9, 7 05 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 8) (“The jury

is i n the best po sition to judge the cred ibi li t y o f a w itness b ecau se it is present to hea r the test imo ny, as opp osed t o an app ellate co urt w ho relies o n the cold record.”). In con v icting appe llant of the aggrav a t e d a s s a u ltof Garz a, th e jury

obviously12

acc epted Gar

z a’s tes ti mony that appel lan t used a kni fe t o cutGar z a’s ar m dur ing the fig ht and reje cte d appel lan t’ s t est imony that he left his knife w it h Guz man and did not br ing the k n i fe t o t h e fi g h t

. W e mu s t d e fe r t o t h e j u r y ’ s d e t e r mi n a ti on. Se e Clay ton v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 772 , 778 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07) (“W hen the reco rd supp orts conf licting inferen ces, w e presume that the factfinder resol v ed th e c onfli cts i n fav or of the p ro secut io n and th e re fo re de fe r to th a t d e te rm in a ti o n .” ) (ci ti n g Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 32 6)

. Base d on the foreg oin g , w e c oncl ude t hat a rati onal jur y could hav e concl uded t hat appel lan t us ed a deadl y wea p o n —a kni fe—to c ause bodi ly i nju ry to Gar z a dur ing the
course of the f ig ht and, therefore, commi tted the o ffense of ag g ra v ated ass aul t. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 22.0 1(a), 22 .02 (a); se e al so Hooper

, 214 S.W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49; Beck

ham , 29 S. W .3d at 151 . W e the refore f ind th e evidence to be legally suffici ent t o suppo rtappel lan t’ s a g g ra v ated ass aul t c onv icti on as to Gar z a. See Jack

son , 443 U .S. at 31 8- 19; see als o Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; Escamil la , 1 4 3 S .W .3 d at 817. Furthe rmore , v iew ing the evidence in a n eut ral lig ht, we canno t say tha t the jury ’s v erdict is so w eak that its e e m s clear ly w ro ng or

mani festl y

unj ustor

thati t i s a g ain st the g re at
w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15. T hus,
w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is als o factual ly suffici ent to s uppor t app ell ant’ s c onv icti on as to G arz a. See i

d. 3. The Aggrav ated A

ssa ult of

Grimal do Even thou gh the evidence estab lishes, an d the Sta te conced es, th at ap pellan t did not p ersonal ly

att ack Gr imal do, a p pel lan t w as conv icted o f the ag g ra v ated ass aul t of Gr imal do bas ed on the l aw of pa rt ies , as setout in secti ons 7.02( a) and (b ) of the Tex as13

Penal C ode. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7.0 2( a) -( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Und er se cti on 7. 02( a) (2 ), “[a] person is cri minal ly respo nsi ble for a n offense by the condu ct of a n o th e r if .

. . acti ng w it h i ntentto promote or as si st the c ommis si on of the offense, he s oli cits , enc ourag es, di re cts , ai ds, or att empts to ai d the othe r person to
com mit the of

fense . . . .” Id. § 7.02( a) (2 ). “E v ide nce is suff ic ien t t o c onv ict und er the law of par ti es w here the defendant is phy si cal ly prese nt at the commiss ion of the offense and
enco urages its com mission by w ords or oth er agreeme nt.” Sal ina s v. State , 163 S.W .3d 7 3 4 , 7 3 9 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (q u o ti n g Ran somv. Sta te , 9 2 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 8 8 , 3 0 2 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 4)); se e Bur din e v . St ate , 719 S.W .2d 309 , 315 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86); Cor dova v. State , 698 S.W .2d 107, 111 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985)

. The ev ide nce must show th at , att he t i me o f t he o ffens e, th e pa rti es w ere acti ng t og et he r , ea c h c on tr i bu ti ng s om e part t ow ards the e x ecut ion of thei r common pu rp ose. Bur din e , 719 S.W .2d a t 315

. In deter mini ng w hether

a de fendant par

ti ci pated in an offense as a part y , t he c our t may
ex amine the e v ents oc cur ri ng before, dur ing , and after the commi ss ion of the c ri me and mayrely on t he defendant’ s a cti ons that show an u ndersta ndi ng and common desi g n to commi t t he c ri me. See S ali nas , 163 S.W .3d at 74 0; see als o Bur din e , 719 S.W .2d at 315; Cordova , 698 S.W .2d a t 111 ; Beier v. Sta te , 687 S.W .2d 2, 4 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 5). In t he i nst ant c ase, appel lan t, alo ng w it h N oe, c all ed Gr imal do dur ing the bar becue to t ell hi m thatthey

w ere g oin g to “fuck

hi m up.” Ap pel lan t and his fri ends lat er foll ow ed throu gh on the ir promise w hen the girl s in t h e Malibu cursed and taun ted the MyBlock members ; app ell ant a nd hi s fr ien ds beg an throw ing ro ck s at t he M y Bl ock members; and, f inally, app ellantand his m a le c om pan ions at tacke d the male My Block me mb ers. Mo re ov er , app ell ant a dmitted t o pol ic e tha t he par ti ci pated in the fig ht and that he broug ht14

a k nife to the sc ene of the fig ht. A p p e lla n t lat er tol d pol ic e tha t he left t he k nife w it h Guz man and thathe d id not u se a k nife i n the fig ht. Appel lan t al so poi nted the fin g er at Rol ando, acc usi ng hi m of usi ng a kni fe to stab Gr imal do in the side and not ing thathe was unaw are of Ro lan do’ s a cti ons. W e f in d t h a t i t w as re asona ble for t he j ur y to infer thatappel lan t and hi s fr ien ds inten ded and agreed to f ight the My Block mem bers, especially in lig ht of the te leph one call app ellantand Noe ma de to Grim a ld o , t h e group ’s throw ing of rocks at the My Block
m e m b e rs, and appel lan t’ s par ti ci pati on in the fig ht w it h the re st of t he g ro up. See A r m s te a d v . Sta te , 977 S.W .2d 7 91, 7 97 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 98, p et. re f’d) ( “I n deter mini ng the leg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce to s how appel lan t’ s i ntent , and faced w it h
a record tha t s uppor

ts confli cti ng i nferenc es, w e ‘ must presu m e —e ven if i t doe s n ot aff ir mati v ely

appear i n the record—t hat the tri er of factresol v ed any

su ch confli ct in fav or o f t h e pro se cu ti o n , a n d m u stde fe r to th a t re so lu ti o n .’ ”) (qu o ti n g Ma tso n v . St ate , 819 S.W .2d 839 , 846 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91)). Furthe rmore , during the f ight w ith the My Block
me mb e rs , a p p e l l a n tc o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e as s a u l tof G r i ma l d o by a t t a c k i n g G a rz a w i t h a k n i fe and prev enti ng Gar

z a f ro m ass is ti ng Gr imal do. See Sal ina s , 163 S.W .3d a t 739 ; Bur din e , 719 S. W .2d a t 315

. Appel lan t arg ues on appeal that the S tate did not presentany di re ct ev ide nce of an ag re ement be tw een G ri maldo’ s a ttac kers a nd appe ll ant t o att a ckGr imal do w it h a k nife. Howev er , i t is well- settl ed th at pa rt ic ipa ti on i n an enter pr is e may be i nferred from t he ci rc umstan ces and need no t be show n by di re ct ev ide nce. S e e B e a r dsle y v . S tate , 738 S.W .2d 681, 685 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1987)

. Ins tead, as prev iou sl y menti oned, the factfinder
m a y rely on th e ac ti o n s o f t h e de fe n d a n t t h a t s h o w a n un d e rst a n d in g an d co m m o n de sign15

to do the pro hibite d act and m ay use circum stan tial evi den ce to pro v e pa rty statu s. Se e Sal ina s , 163 S.W .3d at 739. As sta ted b efore, the e v ide nce demonst ra tes thatappel lan t and hi s fr ien ds int ended t o att ack the My Blo ckm e mbers , and appel lan t admi tted to br ing ing a k nife to the sc ene of the fig ht. Gr imal do w as subs eq uentl y st abbed d ur ing the fig ht by appel lan t’ s fr ien ds, and Gar z a w as attac ked by

appel lan t, w ho w iel ded a kni fe. T here fore, ba sed o n the evidence p resen ted at trial, w e con clude thata rationa l jury coul d hav e c onv icted appel lan t for the ag g ra v ated ass aul t of Gri maldo base d upon the l aw of part ies

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 7 .02 (a)(2), 22.0 1(a), 22 .02 (a); see also Hooper , 214 S. W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49; Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151 . Moreover,
w e c annot say

thatthe ev ide nce suppo rt ing ap p e llant ’s co nv icti on for the a g g ra v ated
ass aul t of Gr imal do i s s o w eak that it seems cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or

that iti s a gai n stt h e g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15. Accord ingly , w e con clude thatthe evidence su p p o rting appellan t’s
conv icti ons is l eg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first tw o i ss ues. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA J u s t i c e Do NotPubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of Oct ober , 200 9.