Blea, Juan
PD-0245-15
| Tex. App. | Mar 6, 2015Background
- Appellee Juan Blea was convicted of first-degree felony aggravated assault of a family member.
- The Second Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence did not support serious bodily injury and remanded with instructions to modify the judgment and retry punishment.
- The majority of the Fort Worth court found insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury but evidence supported a deadly weapon finding.
- The State filed a petition for discretionary review seeking proper application of evidentiary sufficiency standards.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the evidence did not establish serious bodily injury but did establish use of a deadly weapon, and remanded for correction of the judgment to reflect a second-degree conviction and a new punishment trial.
- Justice Livingston dissented, contending the evidence was sufficient to prove serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency standard for serious bodily injury | Blea; sufficiency supports serious bodily injury | Bleas; appellate erred as thirteenth juror | Insufficient to prove serious bodily injury |
| Whether the hand was used as a deadly weapon | Blea; hand used as deadly weapon | State; evidence insufficient for deadly weapon | Sufficient to support deadly weapon finding |
| Remedy for deficient serious bodily injury finding | N/A | Modify judgment and retry punishment as appropriate | Remand to reflect second-degree conviction and conduct a new punishment trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes the standard of review for evidentiary sufficiency)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (applies Jackson without reweighing credibility on appeal)
- Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (distinguishes bodily injury from serious bodily injury by degree)
- Nash v. State, 123 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003) (discusses distinctions between bodily injury definitions)
- Wilson v. State, 139 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2004) (cited for definitions and sufficiency principles)
- Hernandez v. State, 161 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discusses evidentiary sufficiency standards)
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reaffirms appellate standards in sufficiency review)
- Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses sufficiency in context of trial evidence)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (applies standard of review to sufficiency challenges)
- Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (affirmative guidance on weighing evidence on appeal)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (addresses credibility and appraisal of conflicts)