Opinion
No. 05-11-00525-CR
05-24-2012
CRAIG WALKER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed May 24, 2012.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-51246-X
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Morris
After waiving his right to a jury, the trial court convicted Craig Walker of assault involving family violence and impeding the complainant's breathing or circulation. He complains on appeal that the evidence against him was legally insufficient to support his conviction and the portion of the assault statute referencing impeding normal breathing or circulation of the blood is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him. Concluding appellant's issues are without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Factual Background
The complainant was appellant's fiancé and live-in girlfriend. She testified that during an argument, appellant grabbed her around the neck, threw her to the floor, and choked her. According to the complainant, appellant then straddled her, choking her with both his hands to the point she got lightheaded. She became concerned that appellant was going to kill her.
Testifying in his defense, appellant claimed he had not choked the complainant in any way. According to him, the complainant called police after he accused her of misappropriating his food stamp card and threatened to turn her in for theft. He admitted he did not tell the arresting officer about the food stamp card. Discussion
In his first point of error, appellant complains the evidence was legally insufficient. He argues that his testimony was more credible than that of the complainant. In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The trial court, as fact finder in this case, was entitled to believe the complainant's version of events over appellant's. Moreover, the complainant's testimony alone, detailing the charged offense, was sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See Bradley v. State, 359 S.W.3d 912, 917 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref'd). We overrule appellant's first point of error.
In his second and third points of error, appellant complains that the portion of the assault statute pertaining to impeding normal breathing or circulation of blood is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him. He did not, however, object on these bases at trial.
To preserve a complaint for our review, an appellant must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they were not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 238-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In addition, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the appellant must have objected to the trial court's refusal to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Neither an as-applied challenge nor a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute can be raised for the first time on appeal. See Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding appellant may not raise for first time on appeal a facial challenge to constitutionality of statute); Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding appellant waived his as-applied challenge because he did not specifically object at trial). By failing to raise his objections to the statute at trial, appellant has forfeited his right to raise them on appeal. We overrule his second and third points of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110525F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CRAIG WALKER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00525-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F10- 51246-X).
Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, Justices Moseley and Myers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 24, 2012.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE