Opinion
No. 05-02-00340-CR.
Opinion Filed March 25, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-49216-SQ. AFFIRM.
Before Justices WRIGHT, FITZGERALD, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carlos Javier Acuna appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. After the trial court found appellant guilty, it assessed punishment at ten years' confinement. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We overrule appellant's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. In appellant's first issue, he contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove venue. When, as here, the issue of venue is not raised in the trial court, we must presume that proper venue was proved unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2. The record in this case does not affirmatively show otherwise. To the contrary, the record shows that the complainant ran across the street from the crime scene, through the back yard and asked residents to call the police. The police responded to a location in Dallas County where they spoke with the complainant. The complainant indicated she had been sexually assaulted at a nearby house. That house, 1103 Newport Avenue, is located in Dallas County. We overrule appellant's first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction because the complainant's testimony is not credible. According to appellant, her testimony is "completely lacking in any credibility" because (1) she used drugs the night of the offense, (2) certain portions of her testimony at trial differed from her statements to police at the scene; and (3) she was promiscuous. In a factual sufficiency review, this Court does have some authority to evaluate the credibility of the evidence to support a conviction. See Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Crim. App. 2000). However, we may only intrude upon the fact finder's credibility determinations when the cold appellate record clearly and affirmatively indicates manifest injustice. See id. at 8-9. After reviewing the record as a whole, we cannot conclude this is such a case. Because we cannot conclude that (1) the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust, or (2) the verdict is so against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See id. at 11. We overrule appellant's second point of error.