No. 04-07-00202-CR
Delivered and Filed: March 19, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appealed from the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2005-CR-3510, Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding.
Sitting: KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
AFFIRMED Appellant Manuel Longoria Rodriguez was found guilty by a jury of the offense of assault on a peace officer and sentenced to three years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Longoria Rodriguez argues insufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
San Antonio Police Officer Paul Trigo was on routine patrol when a van, traveling at a high rate of speed, almost struck his vehicle. After witnessing the van run a stop sign, Trigo activated his overhead lights and sounded his siren, but the van failed to stop and Trigo continued his pursuit. The driver of the van eventually pulled into a residence, exited the vehicle and attempted to run into the backyard. Trigo ran after the driver. When the driver stumbled, Trigo was able to push him to the ground and straddle him in an effort to handcuff the driver's hands behind his back. As Trigo continued to struggle with the driver, a crowd of people gathered. Trigo testified that he was yelling at the crowd to "Get back," but the crowd just continued to yell. Trigo noticed a female approaching him. In an attempt to keep her at arm's length, he "stiff-armed" her and Trigo testified he suddenly "felt a punch at the top of my head. My head jerked to the right, I felt it come from the left side of my ? left side of ? over here." Trigo identified Appellant Manuel Longoria Rodriguez as the person "standing right where the punch came from." Trigo further testified that there was "no doubt in his mind" that it was Longoria Rodriguez that assaulted him causing redness on the side of his head. INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. Standard of Review In a legal sufficiency review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The standard of review is the same whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both. Kutzner v. State, 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). In a factual sufficiency review, we consider all the evidence in a neutral light and only reverse if: (1) the evidence is so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, or (2) the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). We must, however, avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact-finder, the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). A person commits assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a) (1) (Vernon 2003). The indictment alleges that Longoria Rodriguez did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to an officer while he was lawfully discharging an official duty. Assault on a public servant, as alleged in this case, requires proof that the actor knew that the person he assaulted was a public servant; and the person assaulted was lawfully discharging official duties at the time of the assault. Id. at § 22.01(b) (1). Longoria Rodriguez argues there is no evidence that he struck Officer Trigo. More specifically, Longoria Rodriguez urges that the evidence of his striking Trigo is so inconclusive and conflicting that the jury's finding is clearly wrong and unjust. We disagree. Trigo never equivocated in his identification of Longoria Rodriguez as the individual that struck him. The defense called several witnesses, but none of their testimony truly conflicted with that of Trigo. The witnesses described a rather heated situation, their attempts to "help" the officer effect the arrest, and their attempts to stop the struggle with the driver of the vehicle. At best, the witnesses could simply testify that they did not see Longoria Rodriguez strike Officer Trigo. Trigo's testimony alone substantiated each and every element of the alleged offense. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. We further conclude that after viewing all the evidence, both for and against the verdict, in a neutral light, that the proof of guilt is not so obviously weak as to be greatly outweighed by contrary proof. The jury may choose to believe all, some, or none of a witness's testimony and is responsible for resolving any conflicts in the evidence. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). The jury obviously placed more credibility and weight on the officers' testimony than that of the defense witnesses. Thus, we conclude that the evidence that Longoria Rodriguez struck Trigo is both legally and factually sufficient. See Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. We next consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that Trigo suffered bodily injury from Longoria Rodriguez's actions. Longoria Rodriguez's challenge is based on the lack of medical testimony regarding Trigo's injuries. Bodily injury is defined by the Penal Code as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition." TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(a) (8). Courts have held that this encompasses even relatively minor physical contacts, so long as they are more than mere offensive touching. See Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785, 786-87 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (holding that a red and purple bruise on the victim's wrist from twisting was sufficient to show bodily injury); Harris v. State, 164 S.W.3d 775, 785 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (determining that although no medical attention was required, evidence of choking and reddish marks around victim's neck was sufficient for bodily injury). Trigo testified, and was thoroughly cross-examined, about his physical condition as a result of the confrontation with Longoria Rodriguez. He testified that Longoria Rodriguez struck him on the left side of his head, forcing his head to the right. He also testified to the redness as a result of the assault. Officer Tommy Hamilton confirmed the redness on Trigo's head where he had been hit. The causal relationship between the incident and Trigo's injuries was for the jury to resolve. Based on Trigo's testimony alone, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish bodily injury. Harris, 164 S.W.3d at 785. Moreover, we cannot say the jury's finding of a causal connection is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Johnson, 922 S.W.2d at 11. The evidence is, therefore, legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that Longoria Rodriguez's actions caused bodily injury to Trigo. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial. U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV; TEX. CONST. art. I § 10. In a single paragraph, Longoria Rodriguez asserts three instances of ineffective assistance of counsel: Longoria Rodriguez was not allowed to testify at trial, witnesses were not called and medical testimony was not presented. Longoria Rodriguez cites no authority and does not make any references to the record with regard to his complaint. A complaint on appeal must address specific errors and not merely attack the trial court's order in general terms. Nolan v. State, 102 S.W.3d 231, 235-36 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). Moreover, an appellate brief must contain a succinct, clear, accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). Rule 38 requires an appellant provide discussion of both the facts and the authorities relied upon as may be necessary to maintain the point at issue. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h). Conclusory statements which cite no authority present nothing for appellate review. King v. State, 17 S.W.3d 7, 23 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). Because Longoria Rodriguez failed to provide this court with a discussion of both the facts and the authorities on which he relies, he has waived this issue and we overrule the same.