Opinion
No. 05-10-00952-CR
Opinion issued August 18, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-72191-S.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant Mark Daniel Rankin of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at twenty-one years' imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Because the dispositive issue is clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment. We resolve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the jury's determinations of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony because the jury is the sole judge of those matters. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. In this case, appellant specifically challenges the evidence supporting the jury's finding that he used a belt or a hand as a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is "anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(17)(B) (West 2011). The definition does not require that the weapon actually cause injury, nor does it require that the actor intend to cause death or serious bodily injury. McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The complainant testified at trial that appellant, her former boyfriend, gained entry to her apartment by deception. Once there he demanded money from her and, when she did not give him enough to satisfy him, he "body-slammed" her onto the bathroom floor, stood over her and held her down with his hands around her throat. When he stood up, the complainant fled into her bedroom and sat at the end of the bed trying to catch her breath. The complainant described appellant as upset and mad. He began pounding his fist and telling the complainant she was disrespectful and that she would "pay for being with him." As he talked, he took his belt off and made a loop out of it. Appellant "knocked" the complainant in the face and, as she turned to try and get away, he got on top of her from behind, put the belt around her neck, and started choking her. The complainant fought to get free; appellant put his hand around her neck to keep her from pulling the belt away from her neck. The complainant testified she was fighting for air and told appellant she could not breathe. He responded, "I told you I would — I could kill you. Nobody would miss you. The police can't help you." He called the complainant vulgar names, and he continued choking her with the belt. At some point he stopped, telling the complainant, "I need to get out of here before I kill you." The complainant called the police once appellant left. The police officer who responded to her emergency call stated the complainant refused medical care and only wanted to leave the apartment as soon as possible; she was afraid appellant-who had taken her keys-would return. The officer testified the complainant was crying and upset when he arrived; his report stated that he observed redness and a minor scratch on her neck. The complainant did go to the hospital the next day because she was still having difficulty breathing and could not lift one arm. She was told she had bruising in her chest. Records indicate she had abrasions on her neck and a constant ringing in her ears; a collar was placed around her neck. The complainant met with the detective investigating the case four days later. He described her as very upset; he testified she was frightened and worried that appellant would find her. The complainant never returned to her apartment. Appellant contends there was no evidence from the complainant or from her medical records that indicate appellant used his belt as a deadly weapon. We disagree. Appellant put a belt around the complainant's neck and choked her with it. She fought to breathe, and the episode left marks and continued difficulty breathing. While choking her, appellant threatened to kill her; when he stopped, he said it was because he would kill her if he did not stop. The belt was used as a deadly weapon if it was displayed in a manner conveying the threat that serious bodily injury or death would result if the aggressor were not satisfied. See Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 92, 96 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd). We conclude a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant used his belt in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. We overrule appellant's issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.