No. 14-08-00715-CR
Opinion filed November 10, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 20,086-2008.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE and SULLIVAN.
KENT C. SULLIVAN, Justice.
A jury convicted Franklin Albert Pearce, appellant, of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2009). On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict premised on the State's alleged failure to prove venue. Because we may take judicial notice of the fact the city of Mineola, where the alleged offense occurred, is part of Wood County, we overrule appellant's argument and affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for the alleged aggravated sexual assault of A.P., his seven-year-old daughter, in Wood County, Texas. See id. At trial, A.P. testified all of the alleged episodes of sexual abuse by her father occurred in her bedroom at her house in Mineola. Additionally, the principal at A.P.'s elementary school, Mineola Primary School, testified A.P.'s listed address was in the city of Mineola. Nevertheless, at the close of the State's case in chief, appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State failed to prove venue in Wood County, Texas, as alleged in the indictment. The court denied appellant's motion. Then in the defense's case in chief, Erica Pearce, appellant's adult daughter and A.P.'s half sister, testified A.P. and A.P.'s younger sister lived in Wood County with appellant and his wife. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict premised on the State's alleged failure to prove venue in Wood County, Texas, as alleged in the indictment. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. II. DISCUSSION
We review a directed verdict under the same standard of review as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Evidence is legally sufficient when, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense. Id. at 482-83. We defer to the jury's determination of the credibility and weight of the evidence. See Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). As a general rule, venue is proper in the county in which a sexual offense is alleged to have taken place. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 13.15 (Vernon 2005). The State bears the burden proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence through direct or circumstantial evidence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 13.17 (Vernon 2005); Black v. State, 645 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Evidence is sufficient to establish venue if the jury may reasonably conclude the offense was committed in the county alleged. Rippe v. State, 384 S.W.2d 717, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). In support of his contention, appellant argues the State did not prove in its case in chief that the offense occurred in Wood County. Nevertheless, he does not dispute it occurred in Mineola. We may take judicial notice that a city is located within a particular county. See, e.g., Watts v. State, 99 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating the court may take judicial notice that the City of Austin is located in Travis County); Sixta v. State, 875 S.W.2d 17, 18 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (holding the court may take judicial notice of the fact Houston is located in Harris County, Texas). Parties may dispute whether the offense occurred in a particular city but not whether a city is located within a particular county. See Watts, 99 S.W.3d at 610. To insist that a party prove such a readily ascertainable fact would waste limited judicial resources and defy common sense. Id. Therefore, we take judicial notice that Mineola is located within Wood County, Texas. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict. We overrule appellant's sole issue. III. CONCLUSION
Finding no merit in the issue presented, we affirm the judgment.