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

NO. 03-04-00766- CR

G e r ald He r r e r a, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2002- 076, HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ger ald Her

rer a appea ls his conviction of ag g ravated assault with a dea dly wea pon. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 22. 02 (a )( 2) (We st Supp . 200 5)
. A j ur y a c qu itt e d a

pp e lla nt o f t wo c ounts of assa ult and found him g uilty

on a third count, a ssessing punishment at eig ht y ear s in prison. The tr ia l c ourt e nte re d a n a ff ir ma tiv e fi nd ingthat a kn if e e xhibi te d in

the inc ide nt c on sti tut e d a de a dly
wea pon. I n four issues, appellant complains that the evidenc e wa s leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient and that the trial court erre d in admitting int o evidenc e an unrec orded oral statement take n while he was inca rce rate d on an unre lated cha rg e. Be cause the evidence is sufficient and the state ment was proper ly admitted, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND The e vidence at trial showed that in the ear ly morning hours of July

22, 2001, a fig ht broke out be tween H ispanic patrons of the Mira Ma

r B ar i n L ockhar

t and a g roup of Af

rica n-2

A m e r i c an s o u t s i d e t h e b ar . T h e H e r r e r a f a m i l y w a s a tt h e b ar

c e l e b r a t i n g a

p p e l l an t ’ s b i rt h d a y. Severa l A frica

n-Amer ican males who had been acr oss the street in the pa rk, playing ba sketball and drinking beer , enter ed the ba r to sho o t pool. The owne r aske d them to leave be cause they wer e pr oh ibi te d f

ro m br ing inga lc oh ol i nto the ba r. As the y g a the re d o n th e po rc h to fi nis h th e ir be e rs , words wer e exchang ed betwee n appellant’ s sister, Ger ismisa He rre ra, and Richar d Asberr y , one of the Afr i can- Americ an males, a s Gerismisa lef t the bar a nd hit Asberry

with the door. He told her to watc h wh e re sh e wa s g oin g and sh e we nt ba c k int o the ba r to g e t he r b ro the rs . Sh e re tur ne d w ith her br others, appe llant and David He rre ra, a nd her f ather , Natividad He rre ra. As David

He rr e ra e xite d th e ba

r, wi tne sse s Jav on

Ha g g ard and Sha un Rus se ll observe d him holding a knife or box cutter in one hand. They started to le ave the premises. As they returne d to the park a cross the stre et, t hey observe d numerous patrons coming from the ba r into the str e e t and a fi g ht e ru pte d b e tw e e n th e tw o g ro up s. Sheena Russell, Shaun’s sister, r eporte d the fi gh t to her mother, Shar i, who was at h e r s i s t e r - i n - l aw ’ s n e ar

b y h o u s e . S h ar i R

u s s e l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a t , w h e n s h e ar

r i v e d a tt h e s c e n e , t h e b o ys
wer e ac ross the st ree t at t he park and the Hispanics beg an “c harg ing” the Afr ican- Americ ans. She
rec og nized appellant bec ause she had worke d with his wife a nd mother at a

local nursinghome. She observe d David He rre ra try i n g t o “cut a

g roup of boy s in the street.” She also observe d appellant and his mother holding knives. Br andishing the kni fe, appellant t hen “suc ker- punched” her in the ey e. She fe ll unconscious to the g round.

During th e d i sturbance , sever al individuals were cut or stabbe d, including Javon Hag g ard ( the complainant in count one ), Shaun Russell (the complaina nt in count two), Dy

wane3

Ra lst on , A le x B oyd, L e ste r B ri tto n, and An g e lit a Ma rt ine z. Witn e sse s ob se rv e d a pp e lla nt a nd his brother David using knives during the fig ht. Shari Russell, the c omplainant in count three , was not stabbed, but wa s punched in the e y e.

As the police a

rrived, the y

stopped a c ar in whi ch ap pellant and his par ents wer e leaving . Appellant wa s in the back se at
. A s earch of the car reve aled a

pocket knife on the bac k floorboar d. Appellant wa s arr ested on a n outstanding w arr ant for f ailure to a p p ea r i n co u rt on an unrelated cha

rg e. L ockhar t Poli ce O ffice r David Powell beg an to question witnesses immediately afte r the incident. He spoke with appe llant later that morning at the jail in an eff ort to determine w hat had happene d. Appellant tol d Powell that he had participated i n the fig ht and had possesse d the knife
re c ov e re d f

ro m the ba c k flo or

bo ard
. Pow e ll tes tif

ie d tha t app e lla

nt s a id t hat he wa s c e le br a tin g his bir thd ay wh e n h e le a

rn e d th a t a

fi g ht h a d sta

rt e d ou tsi de
. Ap pe lla

nt w e nt o uts ide the ba

r, saw h is sis te r a rguin g wi th som e bla c k mal e s and his br oth e r ac tua lly fi g hti ngwi th t

he m. H e loo ke d f

or his fathe r a nd saw h is f a the r f a ll t o th e g ro un d a s a bla c k mal e ba c ke d aw ay . Ap pe lla nt w e nt o ut i nto the stree t but was hit, lost hi s g lasses and could not se e beca use of his poor ey esig ht, and fe ll to the g round. Powell testified that appe llant admitted that he had a pocket knife and had r emoved the knife fr o m h is p o c k e t an d dr o p p e d it o n th e f lo o r b o ar d w h e n h is p ar e n ts ’ c ar w a s s to p p e d b y the po lic e . H e tol d Po we ll that he ha d tr ie d to pu ll the kn if e ou t of his poc ke t af

te r h e wa s k

no c ke d to the g round, but could not do so beca use he w as beingkicked or punched w hile ly ing on the g round. The stateme nt wa s not recor ded and the office r did not advise appe llant of his statutory or
c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts
.4 Th a t sa me da y , Of fi c e r Pow e ll w e nt t o th e He rr e ra ho me and

sp ok e wi th G e ri smi sa and her fathe r, Natividad Herr era , as p ar t of his “pre liminary investigation as to what happe ned.” Powell also spoke with Mrs. Her rer a, appe llant’s mother, and the individuals who had be en injured in the fig ht. Powell testified that from J uly 22 until August 8 or 10, he w orked on the investigation full time, tr

y ing to sor

t out the e vents. Appellant g ave a written statement on July 31, 2001, in which he a dmi tte d to par

tic ipatin g in the fi g ht, and po sse ssi ngthe kn if

e . A t tr ia l, n e ith e r p art

y of fe re d in to
e vid e nc e the wr itt e n s ta te me nt.

I n s e pa rate pr oc e e din g s, a

pp e lla nt’ s b ro the r, Da

vid He rr e ra , a

nd sis te r, Ge ri smi sa He rr e ra , p le a de d guil ty

to a ssa ult
. David

He rr e ra te sti fi e d at a

pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l, a dmi tti ngto brandishing and using the knife to “ cut” f our individuals. He testified that he and his brother w ere often mistaken for one another as well as their fathe r, and that he ne ver sa w appe llant with a knife that night: “I

know he ha s one on him, but . . . I didn’t see him use it.” Da vid Herr era

attributed the conflict be tween the parties to an inc ident in 1992 in which he cut Shaun R ussell and Dy wane Ralston and pleade d g uilty to assault. He de nied that appellant pa rticipated in the f

ight a nd claimed that he wa s th e on e wh o h it Sh ari Rus se ll.

The jur y a c qu itt e d a

pp e lla nt o f t he a ssa ult s a g a ins t H a g g ard

and Sha un Rus se ll i n counts one a

nd two, but found him guilty of ag g ravated assault with a deadly wea pon ag ainst Shari Russell in count three.See M iranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 38.22, § 2(a ) (West 2005). 2 5 AN AL YSI S I n h is f ir st two iss ue s, a

ppell ant c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a dmi tti nghis
un re c or de d o ra l st a te me nts to O ff ic e r P ow e ll w hil e in cu sto dy
. Spe c if ic a lly , he c omp la ins that hi s statements that he pa

rticipated in the f

i gh t and possessed a

knife we re ina dmissibl e bec ause the state me nts we re ob ta ine d w ith ou t Miranda war nings and did not comply with article 38.22 of

the 1 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
. The State a cknowledg es that appe llant did not rece ive Miranda 2
war nings pr ior to making the challeng ed statements to Powe ll, but it arg ues that the e vidence was
corr ectly admitted by

the trial cour

t beca use the stateme nts were not the product of c ust o d ial interrog ation. Although a ppellant filed a

motion to s uppress stateme nts obtained in violation of Miranda and ar

ticle 38.22, he did not seek a hear ing on the motion prior to trial. At trial, when the State introduced the statements throug h the testimony of Off icer Powell, appellant objec ted and a brief hear ing was conducted out of t he presence of t he jury . The trial c ourt overr uled the objec tion
and a dmi tte d th e state me nts
.

As to h is f

ir st i ssu e , a

pp e lla nt a lle g e s th a t th e tr ial c ourt ’s de c isi on to a dmi t state me nts a t tr ia l th a t w e re ma de by a pp e lla nt t o a law enfo rcem ent o ff

ic ia l w ith ou t Miranda
war nings violate d his Fifth Amendment r ight a g ainst self-incr iminatio n . The F ifth Amendment
re q u i rements of Miranda v. Arizona a p p ly o n ly if th e s tate me n ts a t is s u e w e r e th e r e s u lt of “interr og ation” of a suspect who was at the time in “custody .” Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436,The Supreme Court has dec lined to addre s s t he question of whe ther inca rce ration 3 constitutes custody

for pur poses of Miranda
. Se e Brad le yv . O hio , 4 97 U. S. 1 01 1 ( 19 90 ) ( Ma rs ha ll, J ., dissenting f

rom denial of c ertiora

ri). 6 444 (1966). Custodial interr og ation exis ts w hen a law enfor ceme nt of ficial questions an individual and that questioning was (i) c onducted in custodial setting s that have inhe rently coer cive pr essure s that tend to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak, Miranda , 3 84 U. S.
a t 46 7, and

(i i) wh e n th e inq

uir y is c on du c te d b y

of fi c e rs who are awa

re of the po te nti a lly incriminatory nature of the disclosures soug ht, Garner v. United States , 424 U.S. 648, 657 (1976). Only questioning that refle cts a mea sure of compulsion a bove and bey ond that inhere nt in custody itself constitutes interrog ation, the fruits of which may be re ceive d in evidence only afte r Miranda
war nings ha ve bee n g iven. Rh od

e Is lan d v . I

nn is , 446 U. S. 291 , 3 00 -0 1 ( 19 80 ). Court s g e ne ra lly have declined to equate inca rce ration with custody

for pur poses of Miranda
. See , e.g. , United States v. Newton , 3 69 F .3 d 6 59 , 6 70 (2 nd Cir . 2 00 4) ; United States v. Me nzer , 29 F. 3d 12 23 , 1 23 2- 33 (7 th Cir . 1 99 4) ; Ga rc ia v . S

ing le tar y , 1 3 F .3 d 1 48 7, 14 91 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 4) ; United States v. Conley , 779 F.2d 970, 973- 74 (4th Cir. 1985). The que stions asked must h av e b ee n both likely to elicit an 3 incriminating response and to produce psy cholog ical pressures that will subject t he indi vidual to the “will” of his examiner. In nis , 4 46 U. S. at 30 0- 01 ; Miranda , 384 U.S. at 457-58.

He re , a pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t “[ n] ot wi ths tand ingPow e ll’ s c la im that he wa s me re ly trying to c larify

what had happene d in the alterc ation, the purpose of the intervie w was to e licit an ‘incriminating response ’ fr om Appellant about his participation in the offense .” Bu t t h ere is no
su pp or t in the re c or d f

or thi s a sse rt ion . O n d ir e c t e xami nati on , Po we ll t e sti fi e d: “ Ia sk e d G e ra ld some questions. At that time, I was g ather ing inf ormation and didn’t know Mr. Herr era ’sAlthough the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not addr essed who be ars the bur den of 4 proving that the statement wa s not the result of custodial interrog ation, the C ourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has he ld that a def endant be ars the bur den of pr oving that a prosec ut i o n -o ff ere d statement i s one to which Miranda applies. Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 792 F.2d 1299, 1309 ( 5th Cir. 19 86 ); United States v. Charles , 7 38 F .2 d 6 86 , 6 92 (5 th C ir . 1 98 4); see also 4 1 G e o r g e E
. D ix & Robert O. Da

wson, Texas Practice : Criminal Practice and Proce dure § 13.384 (2d ed. 2001)
. 7 involvement, if any , in the assault.” Rely ing on his motion to suppress and a rg uing that appellant
wa s a lr e a dy a su sp e c t wh e n he sp ok e wi th Pow e ll, a pp e lla nt’ s c ouns e l ob

je c te d to the a dmi ssi bil ity of the state me nt. Ou

tsi de the pr e se nc e of

the jur y , d e fe ns e c ouns e l e lic ite d that, at th e tim e Pow e ll interviewe d appellant on the mor ning f ollowing the f

ight, Powell had spoken w ith another police office r who a dvised him that the Her rer a family was “ involved in the alterc ation” but not that they
wer e suspects. The State then established that a ppellant was in c ustody

on an unre lated off

ense, w as not a suspect, and was not detained on the i nstant offe nse. Over ruling appellant’ s objection, the trial court a dmitted the of

fice r’s testimony about the statement. Although appellant knew he was be ing questioned by

Powell a nd was incar cer ated, there is no evidence in the rec ord of c oerc ive pre ssure or that appe llant was compe lled to speak. Apa rt from the f

act of incar cer ation, there is no evidence of compulsion or that the stateme nt was otherw ise one of custodial interrog ation. We cannot say 4 the trial cour

t erre d in admitting the stateme nts. Appellant’s first issue is overr uled. Ap pe lla nt n e xt ar g ue s th a t th e state me nt wa s ina dmi ssi ble be c a us e it did no t c omp ly with a rticle 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt
. 38.22 (West 2005). Article 38.22 g overns the a dmissibi lity of oral statements made by an ac cused during custodial interrog ation. Id . Section 3(a) of ar ticle 38.22 re quires (i) or al stat ements to be elec tronically

rec o rd ed , (i i ) t h e accuse d to be g iven the wa rning s set out in section 2, and (iii) theSee 4 1 G e o r g e E
. D ix & Ro b e rt O
. D aw s o n , Texas Practice : Criminal Practice and 5 Procedure §§ 13.384, .386 (2d ed. 2001 ) (d ef endant pr obably

has initial burden of e stablishing applicability

of ar ticle 38.22). 8 acc used to knowing ly , intelligently , and voluntarily waive a ny rig hts set o u t in the warning
. Id
. § 3(a) . The statute, howe ver, doe s not preclude admission of a statement that doe s not stem from “custodial interr og ation.” Be cause the statement did not stem from custodial interrog ation, it was 5 not improper for

the trial cour

t to admit it into evidence
. I n his third and fourth issues, appellant c halleng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y of the evidenc e to suppor

t the deadly wea

pon finding
. He ur g es spec ifically that the evidenc e does
no t e sta bli shthat a

pp e lla nt used a kn if e to c omm it the a ssa

ult a g a ins t Sh ari Rus se ll. Th e ind ic tme nt c ha

rg e d ap pe lla

nt wit h ag g ra vate d ass a

ult by str iki ngSha

ri Rus se ll wi t h his hand and by

use and e x hibition of a deadly wea pon, to wit, a knife, that in the manne r of its us e and

int e nd e d u se wa s c a

pa ble of c a us ing de a th an d ser iou s bod ily inj ur y . A p e rs on

c omm its the c ri me of

a ssa ult if he (i ) i nte nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y

(i i) c a us e s b od ily

inj ur y to another
. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 2 2. 01 (a )( 1) (We st Su pp . 2 00 5)
. I f a

pe rs on us e s o r e xhibi ts a deadly wea pon during the commission of an assa ult, he can be convicted of ag g ravated assault. See id . § 22 .0 2( a )( 2) . App e lla nt c on te nd s that the e vid e nc e of his us e of

a de a dly we a po n w a s le g a lly and fa ctually

insufficient be cause appellant punc hed Mrs. Russell in the ey e, temporar ily knocking her unc onscious, but he did not motion at her with the knife he had in his other hand. T hus, he urg es that, e ve n if

he is f ound to have ha d a kn if

e , he did no t use or e

x hib it the po c ke t kn if

e fo r t he purp os e of fa cilitating the of

fense . The possession of the knife was only incidental to, and not a compone nt9

of , th e c omm iss ion

of th e ass aul t. B ut h e a lso c la ims tha t he ne ve r r e mov e d th e kn if e fr om h is pocket e x cept to disca

rd it on the floorboa

rd. Althou g h a kn if

e is n o t a d e a d ly w e a

p o n p e r s e , th e St a te c an , w it h o ut expert testimony , prov e a p articular knife to be a dea dly wea pon by showing the manner

of its use or intended use and its capa city to produce death or serious bodily injury
. Blain v . S

tat e , 647 S.W .2d 293, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). An o b j ec t is a dea dly

wea pon if the ac tor intends a use of the object in which it would be c ap ab le of causing death or serious bodily injury
. Mc Cai n v. Sta te , 22 S.W .3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

I n a le g a l suf fi c ie nc y re vie w, we loo k at th e re le va nt e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t favor able to the verdic t and deter mine whether

a rational finder of

fac t could have f

ound the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The trier of fa ct is entitled to resolve a ny conflicts in the evide nce, to evaluate the cre dibilit y of witnesses, and to de termine the w eig ht to be g iven any particula r evide nce. S

e e J o n es v . S t ate , 9 4 4 S .W.2d 642, 647 (Tex. C rim. App. 1996). Any inconsistencies in the e vidence should be resolved in f avor of the ve rdict. Mo re no v . S tat e , 755 S.W .2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). This standard of revie w i s the s ame for bot h direc t and circ umstantial evidence
. Gr e e n v . S tat e , 840 S.W .2d 394, 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Fa ctual suff

iciency require s the revie wing cou rt to view the evide nce “ without the prism of ‘in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution.’” C l e w i s v . Stat e , 9 2 2 S.W .2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). There are two prong s to a factual sufficiency revie w: the re viewing court must ask (i) whether t he st ate’ s evidenc e, taken alone, is so weak that it render s the adve rse f inding10

clea rly wrongor manife stly

unjust; and (ii) whether

the pro of of guilt, although ade quate if taken alone, is ag ains t the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Zul ian i v . S tat e , 97 S.W .3d 58 9, 59 3- 94 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Johnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 11 . A fa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y re vie w mus t
e mpl oy a pp ro pr ia te de fe re nc e to t

he fa c t f ind e r’ s r ole a s the so le jud g e of the we ig ht a

nd c re dib ili ty to be g iven to witness testimony
. Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 7. A verdict will be set aside “ only if the
e vid e nc e su

pp orti ng guilt is s o o bv iou sly we a k, or

the c on tr ary

e vid e nc e so ov e rw he lmi ng ly outweig hs the supporting evidenc e, as to rende r the c onviction clear ly wrong and manife stly

unjust.” Or tiz v . S tat e , 93 S.W .3d 79, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). B e c a us e oth e r v ic tim s w e re c ut and Sha ri Rus se ll wa s no t, a

pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t th e se fac ts render

the evidenc e that he use d or exhibit ed a de adly wea pon during th e attack leg ally and fac tually insufficient. He also contends that the witnesses’ te stimony conce rning whether

appellant
w a s e x h i b i t i n g a

kn i f e w a s c o n t r a d i c t o r

y. Th e a lle g a ti on that th e kn if e wa s u se d o r e xhibi te d a s a de a dly we a po n is a mpl y supported by

the evidenc e. B y

her te stimony , Mrs
. R u s s el l “hea rd” the knives and bottles being broken. She sa

w the “hispa

nics” with “bla des” “in the reflection of the s tree tlights
. . . in their hands and . . . swing ing the m.” She saw a ppellant wit h a knife in his hand try ing to “ cut” the boy s. When asked whether she knew what kind of knife it was, she responde d: “I t looked like—when—whe n Iran up on him, he w as g oing like this (indicating) , so I said switchblade, but it was a knife.” She observe d him act as thoug h he wa s g oing to c ut someone. As she intervene d he knocke d her out a nd sh e fe ll unc on sc iou s o n th e g ro un d: “H e ha d th e kn if e in t his ha nd and the n h e su c ke r- punc he d me in my ey e.” Shaun Russell also saw appellant with a knife in his hands and appe llant acknowle dg ed11

in his statement to Powell that he possessed a knife but that he ke pt it in hi s pocket. Javon Hag g ard te sti fi e d th a t he wa s c ut b y Da vid H e rr e ra

and did no t se e a pp e lla nt w itha kn if e . Sh a un Rus se ll testified that he, too, wa s cut by Da v i d He rr era , but that appellant wa s also car rying a knife. He kn e w that he ha d b e e n c ut b y Da vid He rr e ra , b ut t

ho ug ht he mig ht a lso have be e n c ut b y a pp e lla nt. Th e fa c t f ind e r w a s wa

rr ante d in c on c lud ing fr om the natur e of the e nc ounte r b e tw e e n M rs . Ru sse ll and appellant and her testimony that appellant intende d to use the knife in a manner that would be
c a p a b l e o f c a u s i n g d e a t h o r

s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. Viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the verdic t, the evidenc e is suf ficient to show that a pp e lla nt u se d o r e xhibi te d a

kn if e duri ng an a ssa

ult
. We fi nd that a ra

tio na l tr ie r of fa c t c ou ld have found bey ond a rea sonable doubt that a ppellant used or exhibi ted a knife as a dea dly wea pon duri ngthe a ssa

ult . We the re fo re c on c lud e th e evide nc e is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the de a dly
wea pon finding . Appellant’s third issue is over ruled. L ike wi se , w e con clude that th e e vid e nc e wa s f a c tua lly su ff ic ie nt. Th e e vid e nc e is sufficie nt to meet the first prongof our fac tual sufficie ncy revie w. The State’s evidenc e that a knif e
was u s e d a s a d e a d ly w e a p o nd u r in g th e a s s a

u lt w a s n o t s o w e a k

a s to r e n d e r

th e ju d g e ’ s f

in d ing clea rly wrongor m anife stly

unjust. See Zuliani , 97 S.W .3d at 593-94. Unde r the sec ond prong of a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we must as k wh et her the proof of g uilt, although ade quate if taken alone, is ag ainst the gre at weight and preponde ranc e of the available evidenc e. Se e id . Appellant relies on his brother ’s testimony that the brother

was the a ssailant and that appe llant d i d not pa rt ic ipate in the fi g ht. B ut the jur y wa s e nti tle d to e va luate the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s and

to12

weig h the evidenc e. See J ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 9. We conclude the evidence is fac tually sufficie nt to support the deadly

wea pon finding . We overrule appellant’ s fourth issue.

CO NC LU SION F ind ingthe e vid e nc e le g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the fi nd ingthat a deadly wea pon was used or exhibi ted during the commission of the assault and that the trial court did no t e rr in a dmi tti nga

pp e lla nt’ s st a te me nt, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: De cembe r 1, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh