IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00299-CR

MICHAEL LANGLEY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 369th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-0127CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In one issue, appellant, Michael Langley, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting his conviction for injury to an elderly individual. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.04(a). We affirm.
Langley v. State Page 2

Issue One

In his sole issue on appeal, Langley contends that the finding of guilt is irrational, 

and thus, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.1 We disagree.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of review of a 

sufficiency issue as follows:

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider 

whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, 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, 319, 

99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to 

the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the 

testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from 

basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. We may not re-weigh 

the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams 

v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting 

a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy 

but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d 

at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or 

evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the 

facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at 

trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 

443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences 

from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. 

Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This is because 

the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the 

witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 

S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial 

evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be 

1 Our records reflect that, despite being represented by counsel, Langley has filed numerous pro se 

documents in this Court. A party represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (noting that courts are free to disregard pro se 

motions presented by a defendant represented by counsel); Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2001). As such, we will not respond to Langley’s numerous pro se documents filed in this Court.
Langley v. State Page 3

sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the 

incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey 

v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 

13.

We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient 

to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the offense as 

defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.” Malik v. 

State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically 

correct jury charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by 

the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof 

or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately 

describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id.; see 

also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The “law 

as authorized by the indictment” includes the statutory elements of the 

offense and those elements as modified by the indictment. Daugherty, 387 

S.W.3d at 665.

Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

Here, Langley was charged by indictment with intentionally or knowingly causing 

bodily injury to Evelyn Carrington, an individual sixty-five years of age or older and a 

member of the defendant’s household by striking her in the face with his hand. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a). A person commits the offense of causing injury to an elderly 

individual if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes 

an elderly individual: (1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, 

impairment, or injury; or (3) bodily injury. Id. “Elderly individual” means a person sixtyfive years of age or older. Id. § 22.04(c)(2). “Bodily injury” means “physical pain, illness, 

or any impairment of physical condition.” Id. § 1.07(a)(8). On appeal, Langley asserts 

that the evidence is insufficient to show that he caused bodily injury to Evelyn.
Langley v. State Page 4

Evelyn met Langley, who is about thirty years her junior, at a Subway restaurant 

in Jewett, Texas.2 Evelyn recalled that Langley was profusely perspiring, looked sick, and 

carried “a staff like Moses carried.” Langley overheard that Evelyn needed her house 

painted and interjected that that was his line of work. Feeling sorry for Langley, Evelyn 

invited him over to her house on several occasions to help her and do odd jobs. 

Eventually, Langley moved into Evelyn’s house.

All was well for several years until Langley’s demeanor changed. Evelyn noted 

that Langley began to curse often, get mad at her, and drove away her family and friends. 

At this point, Evelyn wanted Langley to leave her house, which, as Evelyn described in 

her testimony, led to the incident in question. Specifically, she described the incident as 

follows:

He was sitting at the end of the dining room table there, and I stood facing 

him, and I said Today—I’ve asked you to leave my home, and asked you to 

leave my home, I’ve called the law and asked you to leave my home, and 

you wouldn’t leave, and now I’m going to have to evict you. You’ll leave 

my home today.

When told this, Langley “jumped up, and he slapped me here. And then, he grabbed me 

this way, and put my head into the wall there, into the door facing.” Evelyn recalled that 

“[i]t hurt me so bad, I was just—In other words, I was hurting, and I was—I wasn’t 

thinking straight.”

2 At the time of trial, Evelyn was eighty-one years old.
Langley v. State Page 5

Deputy Cody Wood of the Leon County Sheriff’s Office testified that, on August 

29, 2018, Evelyn called to report that she “had a knot on the top of her head from where 

she was shoved into a wall, and then, her face and her ear where she had been hit.” 

Deputy Wood went to Evelyn’s residence to investigate and recalled seeing a “bump on 

the top of her head” and that “she did have a slight red spot on the side of her face.” 

Photographs of Evelyn’s injuries were admitted into evidence. Based on his observations, 

Deputy Wood believed that Evelyn had been assaulted. When Deputy Wood asked to 

speak with Langley, Evelyn indicated that she did not want that to happen because “it 

would just make matters worse.” Deputy Wood noted that Evelyn’s comments about 

Langley made him concerned about her safety.

Deputy Jerry Nichols of the Leon County Sheriff’s Office testified that he was 

dispatched to Evelyn’s house two days after she had spoken with Deputy Wood. During 

her encounter with Deputy Nichols, Evelyn was “pretty shaken up.” Deputy Nichols 

testified that Evelyn was remorseful and attempted to recant her story about the assault. 

Evelyn also told Deputy Nichols that she was afraid of Langley. Describing the incident 

with Langley two days prior, Evelyn told Deputy Nichols that she had,

gotten into a verbal altercation [with Langley]. She was upset because he 

stated he wanted to purchase a motorcycle. And at that point, they were 

crossing paths in the doorway, and he, being a bigger man, is how she put 

it, bumped into him—or, bumped into her, and she bumped into the 

doorway.
Langley v. State Page 6

Evelyn then expressed her appreciation for Langley and that she was worried who would 

be taking care of her in the future. According to Deputy Nichols, Evelyn felt dependent 

on Langley. Deputy Nichols also recounted that Evelyn’s behavior that day was odd and 

that it is common for victims of domestic violence to change their stories “out of fear of 

the other person that caused continuous harm, or they’re not financially stable, or they 

would feel alone if they separated from that individual.”

Robert Carrington, Evelyn’s son, noted that, on the day of the incident, his mother 

came over to his house crying with a washcloth across her face. Evelyn told Robert that 

Langley had hit her. Robert recounted that his mother did not waver about the assault, 

but “at one point told me that it was a mistake. I wouldn’t say that she said it didn’t 

happen, it was a mistake.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that 

the evidence is sufficient for the jury to have determine beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Langley was guilty of the offense of injury to an elderly individual. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 22.04(a); see also Zuniga, 551 S.W.3d at 732-33. And to the extent that the evidence 

conflicts, we are to defer to the jury’s resolution of such inconsistencies in the evidence. 

See Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 

846, 859 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. ref’d) (“An appellate court must give deference to 

a jury’s decision regarding what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence 

because the decision is most likely based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, 
Langley v. State Page 7

which the jury is in a better position to judge.”); see also Pollock v. State, 405 S.W.3d 396, 

402 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.) (noting that a rational juror could have found 

the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt even when the 

complainant recanted because such testimony simply presents a conflict in the evidence 

to be resolved by the jury (citing Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991) (holding that complainant’s recantation of her videotaped testimony did not 

destroy its probative value and that the jury was entitled to disbelieve the recantation))). 

We overrule Langley’s sole issue on appeal.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Rose3

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2021

Do not publish

[CR25]

3 The Honorable Jeff Rose, Former Chief Justice of the Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment 

of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.