Opinion
No. 04-16-00125-CR
04-05-2017
Thomas MENDOZA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-01-001-CRA
Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice AFFIRMED
Thomas Mendoza was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, Mendoza contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's implicit rejection of his claim of self-defense. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Mendoza and Adam Vera were best friends for several years before they had a falling out. A few years after their falling out, Mendoza confronted Vera at a drive-through convenience store, and Vera was shot. The testimony at trial with regard to the confrontation and shooting was conflicting.
Vera testified as follows. Vera decided he no longer wanted to be Mendoza's friend after Mendoza failed to repay Vera money he loaned Mendoza on several occasions and because Mendoza was continuously involved in altercations when they were together in public. Approximately five or six months after Vera stopped responding to Mendoza's phone calls and text messages, Mendoza angrily confronted him at a friend's house. Mendoza asked Vera to go to his house to talk. When Vera arrived at Mendoza's house, Mendoza was outside in his front yard. Vera exited his vehicle, and Mendoza began cussing and shouting at him. Mendoza pushed Vera wanting to fight. Vera was afraid Mendoza was going to pull out a weapon, so Vera pulled out a pistol he was carrying, hit Mendoza on the side of the head, and left. About a year and a half to two years later, Vera, his wife, and a friend went to a drive-through convenience store. Vera was in the front passenger seat. Mendoza approached their vehicle and shot him. Vera's wife also testified she heard a pop after Mendoza approached their vehicle.
Mendoza testified after he and Vera agreed not to hang out together, Vera showed up at his house uninvited. Their talking led to an argument, and Vera pulled out a gun and hit Mendoza on the head. Mendoza's wife testified to a similar version of these events. After this encounter, Mendoza testified Vera frequently drove by Mendoza's house and taunted him. One day, Mendoza saw Vera going to a drive-through convenience store, and he decided to confront him. As Mendoza approached the vehicle, he saw Vera reach for a gun. While the two men struggled over the gun, Mendoza shot Vera. Mendoza fled to his sister's apartment in another town. Mendoza was arrested at his sister's apartment approximately one week later, and the gun used to shoot Vera was recovered from the apartment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
To prevail on a claim of self-defense with the use of deadly force, a defendant must prove: (1) he would have been justified in using force against the other person; and (2) it was reasonable to believe that "deadly force [was] immediately necessary [for protection] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.32(a) (West 2011). "[A] person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." Id. at § 9.31(a).
Once a defendant produces some evidence raising the issue of self-defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). To meet its burden of persuasion, the State is not required to produce additional evidence. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, it has made an implicit finding against any defensive theory raised by the defendant. Id. at 914; see also Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594.
When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's implicit rejection of his self-defense claim, "we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant's self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt." Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914; see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
DISCUSSION
Mendoza does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding of the essential elements of the aggravated assault offense. Instead, Mendoza challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's implicit rejection of his self-defense claim. Mendoza asserts the evidence established the defense because Vera took out a gun and was shot when Mendoza struggled with Vera to gain control of the gun.
As previously noted, we defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. In this case, the jury could have disbelieved Mendoza's version of the events and believed Vera's testimony that Mendoza approached the vehicle and shot him. In addition to assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the jury also could consider Mendoza's actions in leaving town after the shooting. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (noting "factfinder may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstance of flight"); Valverde v. State, 490 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. ref'd) (referencing flight from scene as evidence jury could consider in rejecting self-defense claim). Having reviewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude the jury rationally could have rejected Mendoza's self-defense claim.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Karen Angelini, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH