Herman Whitfield v. State, 01-15-00316-CR

Herman Whitfield was convicted by a Harris County jury of misdemeanor assault (judgment entered March 30, 2015); sentence 90 days jail; appeal filed the same day; no motion for new trial.
Incident (Aug. 2014): Comcast technician Michael Grant repaired lines at Whitfield’s home; after service Grant attempted to help connect a TV and attempted to leave when Whitfield became angry.
Grant testified Whitfield hit him in the left eye; Grant said he was "surprised" and "felt it," but pain developed later when sweat caused a later-burning scratch; he used a first aid kit and sought no medical care.
Photos and officer testimony showed minor swelling or a small cut; a witness (Whitfield’s grandson) testified Grant had no visible injuries when he arrived.
The complaint charged intentional/knowing mens rea only (no reckless theory), and the defense argues the state failed to prove either mens rea or the required result element (bodily injury).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Legal and factual sufficiency to prove Whitfield caused bodily injury	State contends evidence (victim testimony, photos, officer observations) supports finding Whitfield struck Grant causing bodily injury	Whitfield argues evidence fails to show intentional/knowing mens rea or more than an offensive touch causing bodily injury; pain was minimal and occurred later; no medical treatment	Appellant asks reversal and judgment of acquittal for legal or factual insufficiency (trial record, per brief, insufficient under either standard)
2. Whether Texas’s refusal to permit factual-sufficiency review in most criminal appeals violates due process and equal protection	State implicitly defends existing standards; appellate review limited to Jackson/legal-sufficiency framework	Whitfield argues Brooks’ merger of legal and factual sufficiency denies meaningful review, creates unequal treatment between civil and certain criminal appeals, and violates U.S. and Texas constitutional guarantees	Appellant urges this Court to recognize the constitutional defect and apply both legal and factual sufficiency review; relief requested is reversal and acquittal

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (merged legal and factual sufficiency standards)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (pre-Brooks factual sufficiency standard)
Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussion of sufficiency review)
Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (factual-sufficiency review survives for preponderance issues)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (reasonable-doubt principle and its importance)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (procedural design can deny meaningful appellate review)