STATE OF MISSOURI , ) ) Respondent , ) ) No s . SD33957 and SD33958 vs. ) (Consolidated) ) Filed: April 12, 2016 DONALD K. HARDY , ) ) Appellant

. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY
Honorable James Kelso Journey , Circuit Judge
AFFIRMED Donald K. Hardy (“Hardy”) appeals his conviction s of one count of the class A felony of
assault of a law enforce ment officer in the first degree, and one count of armed criminal action

. H e was sentence d to ten years for the assault of a law enforcement officer, and three years for the
armed criminal action , with the sentences to run concurrently. 1 Hardy presents one point on appeal. Finding no merit to Hardy’s point, we affirm the trial court’s sentence and judgment

.

1 The sentence and judgment on the class A felony of assault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action was app ealed under case number SD33957. Hardy was also charged and found guilty of the class C felony of domestic assault and a second armed crim inal action charge . He was sentenced to seven years for the domestic assault and three years on the second armed criminal action

. Th at sentence and judgment was appealed under case number SD33958. Both cases were tried in the same bench trial and were consolidated for purposes of this appeal. Hardy’s one point relied on asserts trial court error only as to the sentence and judgment in the assault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action. T he trial court’s sentence and judgment as to the domestic assault and armed criminal action are not presented for review in this appeal.2 

### Factual and Procedural Background Hardy contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction s for first

- degree
assault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action. V iewe d in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding contrary evi dence and inferences, State v. Foster , 392
S.W.3d 5 76, 578 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013), the evidence presented at trial was as follows.
On the morning of November 23, 2013, law enforcement officers responded to a
domestic assault call regarding Hardy and his girlfriend (“W.H.”) . Hardy had struck W.H. on the legs and back with a wooden club, and struck W.H.’s face and arms with his hand for up to two
hours while he made her sit in a chair. Hardy believed W.H. had been the “ snitch ” in his earlier

arres t for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Hardy finally told W.H. she
could leave . W.H. left and went to a neighbor’s house where the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department was called, as well as a n ambulance to transport W.H. to the hospital for treatment. After being released from the hospital and giving a statement at the sheriff’s department , W.H. requested sheriff deputies accompany her to the mobile home she shared with Hardy in
order to retrieve some clothing and personal items . Jason Williams (“Deputy Williams ” ), the police chief of Appleton City and reserve deputy for the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department , along with Deputy Gerold Esser (“Deputy Esser”) and Deputy Charles Hodges (“Deputy Hodges”), also with the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department , all accompanied W.H. to the
mobile home

. All three deputies were in uniform and arrived in mark ed patrol cars. Deputy Williams and Deputy Hodges approached the front door , Deputy Esser went to cover the back of the mobile home, and W.H. remained in the patrol car

. Deputy Williams identified himself as being with the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department and repeatedly3 knocked on Hardy’s door, which Hardy refused to open. W.H. the n left the patrol car and approached the mobile home asking Hardy to open the door , which he did finally

. Deputy Williams had pulled his taser , holding it behind his leg , anticipating possible trouble with Hardy . When Hardy partially opened the door, Har dy held a large knife

- machete in his right hand

. When Deputy Williams pushed the door the rest of the way open, Hardy briefly stepped behind the door out of sight. Hardy then stepped forward, raised the knife

- machete
above his head , and brought it down i n a swinging motion toward Deputy Williams . Fearing for Deputy Williams’ life , Deputy Hodges pulled his service weapon and aimed it at Hardy’s head

. However, Deputy Hodges did not fire his weapon as he observed that Deputy Williams had successfully deployed his taser , striking Hardy in the chest . Hardy dropped the knife

- mach ete
and fell to the floor , where he was handcuffed. Hardy was transported to the St. Clair County jail. There Hardy stated he was sorry for putting Deputy Williams in the posi tion of having to ta s e him and that Deputy Williams would
have had the right to kill him. On March 3, 2014, Hardy was charged by amended information with the class A felony
of assault of a law enforcement officer (Deputy Williams), pursuant to section 558 .011, and felony armed criminal action (Deputy Williams), pursuant to section 571.015.1. 2
A bench trial was held on April 14, 2015

. At the close of all the evidence, Hardy moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court took with the case. The trial court then took the
matter under advisement. On May 4, 201 5 , the trial court found Hardy guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of first

- degree assault of a law enforcement office r and armed criminal action. At the sentencing hearing o n June 10, 201 5 , th e trial court overruled all post

- trial motions and

2 All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.4 sentenced Hardy to ten years on the assault of a law enforcement officer and three years on the armed criminal action, with all sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
The sole issue for our determination is whether there was sufficient evidence to support Hardy’s convictions for assault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action.
Standard of Review Appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether the State has introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the State all reasonable inferences. Contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded. The Court will not supply missing evidence or grant the State unreasonable, spe culative, or forced inferences.
State v. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d 624, 632 (Mo. banc 2016) (internal citations omitted). Analysis In his sole point on appeal, Hardy argues there was insufficient evidence of the intent required to support his conviction s for a ssault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal
action. In the argument section of his brief, Hardy points to two cases in support of the argument that only evidence of an actual attempt to injure would be sufficient to support his conviction : Stat e ex rel. Verweire v. Moore , 211 S.W.3d 89 (Mo. banc 2006) and State v. Dublo , 243 S.W.3d 407, 409 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007). Specifically, Hardy suggests that Verweire and Dublo should control because Hardy
never moved toward Deputy Williams with the knife

- mach ete. 3 Hardy argues that the allegation

3 In Lammers , our supreme court indicated: this Court now holds that Verweire was wrongly de cided. To the extent that Verweire and its progeny [, State v. Dublo , 243 S.W.3d 407 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007),] hold that threats with a deadly weapon with the ability to carry them out cannot constitute attempt unless the defendant pulls the trigger, police i ntervene, or the defendant causes only minor injury, those decisions should no longer be followed. Id

. at 636.5 that Hardy attempted to swing the knife

- machete was speculation because no one witnessed this until Hardy was falling to the floor . As a result, Hardy posits, there was insufficient evidence that Hardy had the inten t to cause serious physical injury or death to Deputy Williams. The factual premise of Hardy’s argument is incorrect.
T his is a challenge to a finding of fact on which we must defer to the trial court where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding. Lammers , 479 S.W.3d at 632. There was direct testimony by Deputy Williams that Hardy “stepped out from behind the door and
raised the machete or knife

. . . up into a swinging position,” and then “began swinging a motion forward and I deployed my t az er.” Deputy Hodges also testified that when Hardy open ed the
door , he was holding the knife

- machete and Hardy “raised it up and was coming down to wards Deputy Williams with it.” In fear for Deputy Williams’ life , Deputy Hodges pulled his service
weapon a nd pointed it at Hardy’s head, but did not fire as Deputy Williams had successfully tased Hardy. This is sufficient evidence to support the findin g that Hardy attempted to strike Deputy Williams with the knife

- mach ete with the intent to cause serious physical injury or death to Deputy Williams

. Point denied. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.

– OPINION AUTHOR NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J.

– CONCURS GARY W. LYNCH, J.

– CONCURS