### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 758 -CR

Jo hn Edwar d Ca nt u, I II , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B -04 -07 05- 5 , HO NORAB LE B EN WO ODW ARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jur y fo un d a pp e lla nt John Ed

wa rd Cantu , I I I g uil ty of

a g g ra vate d a ssa ult wi th a de a dly
we a po n a nd asse sse d p un ish me nt, e nh a nc e d b y tw o p re vio us fe lony

c on vic tio ns , at th ir

ty y e a rs ’ imprisonment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (2) (West Supp. 2006). Appellant cha lleng es the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence in a sing le point of err or. We will affirm the c onviction. Appellant’s point of e rror urg es that the trial court err ed by overr uling his motion for a

n instructed verdict of acquittal. This contention is, in effe ct, a c halleng e to the leg al suffic iency of the evidenc e. Mc

Du ff v. Sta te , 9 39 S.W. 2d

60 7, 61 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); W ill iam s v . S

tat e , 937 S.W .2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). I n his pr ay er for r elief, how ever , appellant a sks this C ourt to r e ve rs e a nd

re mand fo r a ne w tri a l. I

n th e interes t of ju st ice, w e wi ll tre a t th e po int of e rr or a s a challeng e to both the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence
.2 When there is a cha l l en ge t o the suffic iency of the e vidence to sustain a criminal convic t i o n , the question prese nted is whether a rational trier of f

act c ould have f

ound the essential elements of the o ffense beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v . S tat e , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 1981) (leg al suffic iency ); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fa ctual sufficiency ). I n a lega l sufficienc y revie w, all the evide nce is re viewed in the lig ht most favor able to the verdict; it is assumed that the trier of fa ct re solved conflicts in t he testi mony , weig hed the evidenc e, and drew r easona ble infer ence s in a
manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff in , 6 1 4 S
. W
. 2 d

at 1 5 9 (c i t i n g Jack

son , 4 4 3 U
. S
. a t 3 1 8
- 1 9 )
. In
a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll the e vid e nc e is co ns ide re d eq ua lly , inc lud ingthe te sti mony of de fe ns e witnesses and the exis tence of alter native hy potheses. Cle wis v . S

tat e , 9 2 2 S.W.2d 12 6 , 1 2 9 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Or on a v . S tat e , 8 3 6 S
. W
. 2 d

3 1 9 , 3 2 1 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n 1 9 9 2 , n o p et
. ). Al t h o u gh due def ere nce still must be acc orded the fac t finder’ s determinations, par ticularly those conc erningthe
we ig ht a nd c re dibil ity

of the e vid e nc e , th e re vie wi ngc ourt may dis a g re e wi th t

he re su lt i n o rd e r t o preve nt a manife st injust ice. Johnson , 23 S. W.3 d at 9; Cai n v . S tat e , 95 8 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997). The evidenc e will be deemed factually insufficient if the e vidence supporting the verdic t is s o w e a k a s to make the fi nd ing of g uil t c le a rl y wr on g or manif e stl y un jus t, o r i f t

he ve rd ic t is a g a ins t the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. W ats on v . S tat e , No. PD-469-05, 2006 Te x. Cr im. Ap p. L EX I S 20 40 , at *30 -3 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. Oc t. 1 8, 20 06 ); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11.

The jury found that appellant intentionally or knowing ly threatened Samantha

Ag uirre, with whom he had once been r omantically linked, with immi nent bodily injury while using or exhibit ing a fire arm. Samantha testified that on the day in que stion she was staying with he r for mer husband, N ick Ag uirre, a

nd their childre n at Nick’s house i n San Ang elo. Shortly afte r Nick left the house with the3

chil dr e n to ta

k e th e m t o s c h o o l a

n d th e n g o to w o r

k , a p p e ll a n t c a ll e d

an d to ld Sama n th a th a t h e w as
c omi ngto g e t he r. She te sti fi e d, “ He was fu ri ou s. He ins ist e d th at I

wa s g oin g to l e a ve wi th h im whether Iwanted to or not. Obviously , he had had a confr ontation w ith my brother the eveningbefor e
a nd it d idn ’t g o th e wa

y he ha d w a nte d it

to. So h e wa

nte d me to se e wh a t he wa s g oin g to d o to my brother . .
. for crossing him.” Appellant told Samantha that “he w as a c ouple of minutes awa y from wher e I was at and that I

was g oing to lea

ve with him. He was g oing to take me so I could see what he was g oing to do to my

brother.” Samantha said that she did not know what h ad h ap p en ed between appellant a

nd her br other, but appe llant “was ve ry ang ry .” I mme diate ly

a ft e r t he c a ll e nd e d, Sa manth a

c a lle d h e r b ro the r a

nd “ tol d him the thr e a ts that we re g ive n to me to him. An d the n I hungup wi th m y br oth e r a nd Ic a lle d my

e x-hu sb a nd

to p le a se come home.” S amantha te stified that she had no doubt that a ppellant was c oming to g et her and that she had ne ver be en so sca red in he r life. I n his ow n testimony , Nick said that Samantha “sounde d very
scar ed” w hen she c alled him and that he immediate ly “took off towa

rd the house.” F ive or te n mi nu te s a ft e r a

pp e lla nt c a lle d Samanth a , h e a rr ive d at the Aguir re ho us e in his pickup. Samantha watched him throug h a cr ack in the door as he w alked to the front porc h car rying what prove d t o be a shotg un. Appellant ca lled out, “Come on, Samantha.” When asked by the prosec utor if appellant pointed the gun at her , she answe red, “ When Iopened the door, it was rig ht there , ma’am, rig ht at m e.” L ater , during cross-e x amination, she i nsisted that the shotg un “wa s pointed
a t me .” Sa manth a

te sti fi e d th a t sh e “ [m]ost de fi nit e ly ” fe lt thr e a te ne d b y a pp e lla nt’ s c on du c t. Nick Aguirre dr ove up bef ore a ppellant could step onto the fr ont porch. W hen Nick y elled at him, appe llant turned without saying a nother wor d, walked back to his pickup truck, and dr ove
awa y . Nick testified that he did not see appe llant point the shotgun at Samantha
.4 Appellant conte nds that the State failed to prove that he thre atene d Samantha Aguirre with imminent bodily injury
. He a rg ues that he did not ver

bally threaten her

and that, while a

threat can be conve y ed in a n o n v er b al manner , the evidenc e that he w alked up to the house while ca rry ing the shotgun w as not sufficie nt to support the jury ’s deter mi n at i o n that he thre atene d Samantha with a firea rm. He c ontrasts the evide nce in thi s ca s e with t hat held suff icient in ear lier prose cutions. See Ho rn v . S tat e , 6 4 7 S
. W
. 2 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 3 ) (h o l d i n g t h at ev i d en ce d ef en d an ts wu n g, hit, nicked, flicke d, and nipped at complainant with knife wa s sufficient t o p ro v e threat of imminent bo dil y inj ur y ); Be rry v . S tat e , 579 S.W .2d 487, 489-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (holding that evidenc e de fe nd a nt g ra

bb e d co mpl a ina

nt’ s ar m and pr e sse d flat, sha

rp ob je c t ag a ins t her

ne c k w a s su ff

ic ie nt t o pr ov e thr e a t of se ri ou s bo dil y inj ur y ); Chu rc h v . S

tat e , 552 S.W .2d 138, 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (h old ingthat e vid e nc e de fe nd a nt g ra bb e d c omp la ina

nt a nd he ld k nif e to h e r t hr oat w as su ffi c ie nt t o prove thre at of ser ious bodily injury). We a g re e that a

pp e lla nt’ s c on du c t is dis tin g uis ha ble fr om the c on du c t of

the de fe nd a nts in t he op ini on s c ite d b y

a pp e lla nt. An d thi s c a se mig ht p re se nt a c los e qu e sti on

if , a s a pp e lla nt w ou ld have it, the e vidence showed on ly that he wa lked up to the Aguirre house while c arr y ing the shotgun. But that is not all the ev i d ence shows. Be fore driving to the house, appe llant called Samantha and, ob vio us ly fu ri ou s, tol d h e r t

hat he wa s “ c omi ngto g e t he r” a nd that sh e “ wa s g oin g to l e a ve wi th h im whether [she] wanted to or

not.” Minutes afte r making this ve rbal threat to kidnap Samantha, by forc e if nec essar

y , appellant a

rrived at S amantha’s residenc e, appr oache d it while car rying a shotgun, a

nd demande d that she come with him. W hen Sam an t h a opened the door, a ppellant pointed the shotg un
a t her
. Vi e wi ng a ll the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, w e c on c lud e that it is l e g a lly5

sufficie nt to support a finding bey ond a rea sonable doubt that appellant thre atene d Samantha Aguirre wi th i mmi ne nt b od ily

inj ur y , a nd that he did

so wh ile us ingor

e xhibi tin g a

fi re a rm . A p p e l l a n tt e s t i f

i e d t h a th e w a s n o ti n

S a n A n g e l o o n t h e d a y o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . In addition, two months after the alleg ed incident Samantha ex ecute d an affidavit, admit ted i n evidenc e by the def ense, stating

that she had be en abusingdrug s, that appellant “ never was at my

house,” a nd that appellant ne ver thre atene d her w ith a fi re ar m . S am an tha explained that she made this affidavit af ter being asked to do so by

appellant a

nd his mother. Obviously , the jury did n o t b el i ev e t his defensive evidenc e. Giving the jury ’s cr edibility deter mination the defere nce it is due, we do not be lieve that the
e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k as to m a ke the fi nd ing of g uil t c le a rl y

wr on g or manif e stl y unjust, or that the verdic t is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. Finding the evidenc e to be both leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support the jury ’s verdic t, we over

rule the point of e rror

and af firm the judg ment of convic tion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Affir med Filed: De cembe r 21, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh