ALFREDO SUAREZ JR APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Alfredo Suarez Jr., appeals his convictions on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His sole issue involves the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the jury's verdict of guilty. We affirm.

The pertinent standard of review is that described in Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). There, we are told as follows:

The standard of review for determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Deference to the trier of fact extends to the inferences drawn from the evidence as long as the inferences are reasonable ones supported by the evidence and are not mere speculation.

Id. at 232 (footnotes omitted).

Next, one may commit aggravated assault in various ways; that averred in the indictment encompassed the act of committing assault and using or exhibiting a deadly weapon during it. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2016). There also are different statutory ways of committing assault. The one alleged here encompassed the act of intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another. See id. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2016) (stating that a person commits assault “if the person ․ intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another”).

With the standard of review and elements of the crime in mind, we turn to the evidentiary record before us. It contains evidence of appellant driving up to his two victims (i.e., Reyes and Torres) as they were parked at a car wash, exiting his pickup, approaching the victims, drawing a gun, shooting, and uttering that he would kill Reyes next time. One bullet struck Reyes in the face near his jaw. At least one bullet struck Torres in his arm. Furthermore, medical experts attending to the wounds of Torres and Reyes opined that the wounds were indicative of gunshot wounds, or so one could infer. That evidence coupled with the authority deeming a firearm a per se deadly weapon, Polk v. State, No. 07-15-00226-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6468, at *14 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 12, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), leads us to hold the evidence sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the offenses alleged in the indictment.

We overrule appellant's issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Per Curiam