Opinion
No. 05-11-00148-CR
03-29-2012
BERNICE WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed March 29, 2012
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-55478-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Moseley
Bernice Williams appeals her conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the motor vehicle alleged in the indictment is a deadly weapon. We affirm. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Background & Evidence Presented
Appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(1) (West 2011). During the plea hearing, appellant testified she was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, but that she was “going open to whether there was a deadly weapon used” in the offense and “open as to punishment.” Appellant's signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence without objection. The trial court then proceeded to hear testimony on the State's motion asking the trial court to make a deadly weapon finding.
Shameka Rogers, the complainant, testified that on May 9, 2010, she went to her boyfriend's house in South Dallas to get money for her daughters' daycare. While sitting in her car talking to the boyfriend, appellant walked up and asked the boyfriend for money. Rogers and appellant argued, then the argument became physical when Rogers got out of her car. When neighbors pulled Rogers and appellant apart, appellant got in Rogers's car and drove off. Rogers testified she ran after the car because she had money inside her vehicle. Rogers signaled to another vehicle coming to block off the street. Appellant put the car in reverse and drove backwards over Rogers. Rogers testified she was standing on the sidewalk when appellant backed over her. Rogers sustained serious injuries, including a punctured lung, cracked pelvic bone, and broken right foot. Additionally, her left arm had to be amputated because of the injury to the arm.
Detective Fred Crouch interviewed appellant on May 9, 2010. During the interview, appellant repeatedly said she did not intend to hit Rogers and that Rogers had a bottle in her hand while chasing the vehicle. Appellant admitted Rogers was not close enough to the vehicle to actually hit her with the bottle. The videotaped interview was admitted into evidence.
Appellant testified she drove Rogers's vehicle over Rogers because appellant was trying to get away. Appellant said the motor vehicle caused serious bodily injury to Rogers, but she never intended to hit Rogers with the vehicle. Appellant testified she was asking a man to exchange her change for dollar bills so she could purchase marijuana from a “weed house” nearby. Rogers drove up and began arguing with the man. Rogers eventually got out of her car and hit appellant. Rogers and appellant physically fought one another until the man and two of his friends pulled them apart. Appellant jumped in Rogers's car so she could get away from the scene. Rogers chased after the car while holding a bottle in her hand. Appellant saw Rogers signal an oncoming car to block the street. Appellant panicked, put the car in reverse, and hit the gas. When she realized she had hit Rogers, appellant called the police.
During cross-examination, appellant admitted that she told the detective who interviewed her that she did not feel sad for the victim, and that she drove off in the victim's car because “I was being funny.” Appellant denied telling the detective that she could have kept going straight instead of putting the car in reverse. Appellant remembered telling the officer who transported her to the jail that “I should have killed that ho because I'm going to jail.” Appellant testified she had a previous aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction where she actually shot someone with a firearm.
The trial court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding that “the manner in which the vehicle was used was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury and it did, in fact, cause serious bodily injury.” The trial court then proceeded with a punishment hearing, and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. Applicable Law
When a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the State must introduce sufficient evidence into the record to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty, and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005); see also Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We will affirm the trial court's judgment if the evidence introduced embraces every essential element of the offense charged and is sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The State was required to prove that appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused serious bodily injury to Shameka Rogers by striking her with a motor vehicle, a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon means “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17)(B) (West 2011). Objects that are not usually considered dangerous weapons may become so, depending on the manner in which they are used during the commission of an offense. Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A motor vehicle may become a deadly weapon if the manner of its use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Ex parte McKithan, 838 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see also Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (evidence must show that other people were put in actual danger). Specific intent to use a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon is not required. McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Discussion
In her sole point of error, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show the motor vehicle was a deadly weapon because (1) she did not know the complainant was behind the vehicle, (2) the complainant's actions of putting herself behind a moving vehicle caused her unfortunate injuries, and (3) appellant simply drove the vehicle in order to get away from another vehicle that blocked her path. Appellant asserts that simply putting a vehicle in reverse in order to navigate the roadway is not enough to support a deadly weapon finding.
Appellant's manner of using the motor vehicle posed a danger to Rogers and others in the area. Appellant knew Rogers was in the area, although she testified she did not know Rogers was standing behind the vehicle. Appellant put the vehicle in reverse and drove over Rogers. Appellant admitted the vehicle she was driving caused serious bodily injury to Rogers.
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to show the motor vehicle was a deadly weapon in the manner of its use. See Ex parte McKithan, 838 S.W.2d at 561; Thomas, 821 S.W.2d at 620; Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d at 792-93. We overrule appellant's sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110148F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
BERNICE WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00148-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F10- 55478-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Lang-Miers and Murphy participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered March 29, 2012.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE