No. 05-04-01271-CR
Opinion Filed September 13, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MA03-36153-L. Affirm.
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and RICHTER.
Opinion By Justice WRIGHT.
Joseph Tome Slim waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty to assault-family violence. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at 365 days in the county jail, probated for twenty-four months. In a single point of error, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
Background
Secoyan Stanfield testified she met appellant in 2002 when she answered an ad for a roommate that had been posted at a grocery store. Stanfield rented a room in appellant's house for $60 per week, and at the time of the incident, she had lived there for about two years. On Saturday, July 26, 2003, Stanfield arrived at appellant's house at about 6:00 p.m. She had been out looking for work earlier that day, and intended to go home to change clothes and then go out looking for an apartment. Appellant gave Stanfield notice of eviction on July 22, 2003, but she had until Monday to move out. When Stanfield arrived, she saw that her belongings had been moved to the front lawn. She went into the house and walked directly to her bedroom. As Stanfield passed appellant, who was sitting on the couch, appellant demanded to know why she was there, stating that she needed to get out because she did not belong there. Stanfield went into her bedroom and shut the door. Appellant burst through the door and grabbed a plastic bag that contained Stanfield's clothes. Stanfield struggled with appellant over the bag. Appellant cursed Stanfield and threatened to kill her. During the argument, appellant grabbed Stanfield's hand and bent one of her fingers backward. Stanfield let go of the bag. Stanfield testified she felt pain when appellant bent her finger backward, and later her finger was swollen. Stanfield dialed 911. Appellant continued to threaten her while she talked to the dispatcher. The recorded 911 call was played to the court. The police arrived a few minutes later and arrested appellant. Stanfield testified she did not go to the doctor for her finger because she did not have the money. The police did not take photographs of her finger and she refused an ambulance at the scene. Stanfield testified that from January 2003 through June 2003, she did not pay any rent for the room because she was in school and not working. Appellant had told her not to worry about the rent and just go to school and get her education. Later, appellant wanted her to agree to give him all of her furniture and other items when she left, but Stanfield refused. Appellant became angry with her and called the police, then he filed for eviction. Stanfield testified that from the date of the eviction notice until the date appellant assaulted her, she stayed in appellant's house. Stanfield denied she ever tried to blackmail appellant with documents she found in his room. Stanfield testified she had loaned appellant her laptop and was looking for it all over the house. While looking for her computer in appellant's room, she saw several Texas driver's licenses, passports, and social security cards. All of the documents bore appellant's name but had different numbers on them. Stanfield became suspicious because appellant always made her pay in cash and would not allow her to use his address for any reason. Stanfield testified she told the police about what she had found, but she did not file a complaint, nor did she take any of the documents and make copies of them. Stanfield testified she had one prior theft conviction. Irving police officer David Puente testified that when he arrived at the scene, he saw Stanfield and another officer on the front porch. Stanfield told Puente she had come back to the residence to get some of her things and discovered her belongings had been thrown on the front lawn. Stanfield went to her room either to get the rest of her property or to see what was left, and she got into an argument with appellant. Appellant tried to grab her bag and bent her finger backward. Puente testified Stanfield appeared to be in pain, but he did not see any visible injuries and did not photograph Stanfield's injury. Puente testified that while he talked to Stanfield, appellant was yelling from inside the house and calling Stanfield a liar. Appellant told Puente that he did not do anything to Stanfield and did not touch her in any way. Appellant's demeanor was argumentative and cocky. Appellant testified he and Stanfield had an arrangement in which she agreed to pay $60 a week for one of the bedrooms in his house. Appellant testified Stanfield never paid him rent. Stanfield told him she was waiting to settle a worker's compensation claim and would pay him then. Appellant agreed to allow Stanfield to live there and go to school because he believed she would pay him when she received a settlement check. Appellant denied he ever touched Stanfield or bent her finger backward. When appellant noticed that Stanfield had a new cell phone and laptop computer, he told her she had to pay the back rent or leave. Appellant testified that on July 3, 2003, he called the police because Stanfield was trying to blackmail him. Stanfield stole his passports, social security card, and driver's license and copied them. Then she threatened to blackmail appellant. After that, appellant filed for eviction in court. Appellant testified that on July 26, 2003, he returned home about 11:15 a.m. and saw Stanfield's car loaded with clothing and personal items. There was also a pickup truck loaded with Stanfield's furniture. Stanfield, her son, and another man were at the house getting Stanfield's belongings. Appellant testified he did not put Stanfield's belongings on the front lawn because they were already there when he came home. After she left, appellant claimed, as his, all the furniture that was left in the bedroom rented to Stanfield. Appellant cleaned the room and moved some of his belongings into the room. Appellant testified Stanfield did not return until the next day. According to appellant, Stanfield walked into his house while talking on her cell phone. Appellant said, "Please do not come in," but Stanfield kept walking toward the bedroom where she previously stayed. Stanfield had a plastic bag in her hand, and appellant thought she was moving her things back into the house. Appellant grabbed the bag from a chair in the bedroom and walked toward the front door. He intended to put the bag on the front porch. Stanfield tried to snatch the bag, but appellant kept walking to the door. Appellant never grabbed or touched Stanfield. Appellant admitted he had previously told Stanfield that she could leave him the bedroom set, refrigerator, tables, and other small furniture, and he would consider her paid up. Appellant testified he had prior convictions for misdemeanor assault and violation of a protective order. Applicable Law
In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The fact finder is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Secoyan Stanfield, a member of appellant's family or household, and that appellant had been previously convicted of an offense against a member of his family or household. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Discussion
Appellant argues the evidence is factually insufficient to support the conviction because Stanfield's testimony was not credible. Appellant asserts there was no tangible proof of any assault or visible injuries to Stanfield's finger, and Stanfield refused any offered medical treatment. Appellant argues the evidence shows Stanfield claimed appellant assaulted her in revenge for being evicted from appellant's house. The State responds the evidence is factually sufficient because the trial court was free to believe Stanfield's testimony over appellant's testimony. We agree with the State. Stanfield testified appellant grabbed her hand and bent her finger backward while they argued over a bag that contained clothing. Appellant testified he grabbed the bag from a chair and never touched Stanfield. It was the fact finder's role to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, to believe or disbelieve the witnesses' testimony, and to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Having reviewed all of the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude it is factually sufficient to support the conviction. See Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 484. We affirm the trial court's judgment.