Cedric Charles Lister v. State, 06-16-00065-CR

Appellant Cedric Lister was indicted for aggravated assault under Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2), alleged to have stabbed Stanley Garmon in the arm with a knife, the knife pleaded as a deadly weapon.
At trial the victim and other witnesses testified the wound was caused by a "sharp object" and was "consistent with" a knife; no witness saw a knife and no knife was recovered.
Emergency-room records and a treating physician (who did not personally examine the wound) described the injury as caused by a sharp object and said it could be a knife; victim testified he did not actually see a knife.
The trial court denied appellant's motion for directed verdict; a jury convicted Lister of aggravated assault as charged.
At punishment the State presented fingerprint-certified records and an expert to establish two prior felony convictions; the court found enhancement allegations true and sentenced Lister to 40 years under § 12.42(d).

Issue	State's Argument	Lister's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that a knife (as pleaded deadly weapon) was used	Evidence (victim statements, medical records, officer testimony) shows wound consistent with a knife; that supports the deadly-weapon element	Evidence is legally insufficient: no one saw a knife, victim only speculated, medical testimony was only "consistent with" a knife and did not prove it was used or that its use rendered it a deadly weapon	Trial court denied directed verdict; jury convicted (appellant seeks reversal for insufficiency)
Whether the indicted punishment range could be enhanced though the indictment was never physically amended	Notice and filed motions (and later proof of prior convictions) provided sufficient notice to allow enhancement; defendant did not timely object to lack of formal amendment	Lack of a written amendment on the face of the indictment rendered enhancement improper	Trial court found enhancement allegations true and imposed enhanced sentence; appellant argued this issue was not meritorious on appeal

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes evidence-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App.) (descriptive allegations in an indictment that identify the means of committing an offense are not necessarily surplusage)
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when the State pleads a specific manner of committing an offense it must prove that manner)
McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App.) (knife is not a deadly weapon per se; State must prove manner of use made it a deadly weapon)
Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App.) (formal pleading of enhancements not always required; other filings can give sufficient notice)
Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant must have a description sufficient to locate the prior conviction records to prepare a defense)