Juan Lopez-Flores v. State, 12-16-00039-CR

Appellant Juan Lopez-Flores was charged with assault-family violence for causing bodily injury to his wife, Delia Lopez, by grabbing, squeezing, pushing, and threatening her with a loaded handgun. He pleaded not guilty.
On the originally scheduled trial date the State sought a short continuance to obtain jail-call records; the court granted the continuance over Appellant’s objection.
The day after the continuance was granted ICE placed a detainer on Appellant; the trial court revoked his bond and he remained in custody.
At trial Delia testified about the assault, her fear for her and her children’s safety, and that she felt pain at several points though she equivocated about back pain; police and an apartment security guard corroborated aspects of her account.
The jury convicted Appellant of assault-family violence and the court sentenced him to 180 days’ confinement. Appellant appealed raising four issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lopez-Flores)	Held
1. Sufficiency re: pain / directed verdict denial	Evidence (victim testimony, fear, physical contact, corroboration) is sufficient to show bodily injury (pain).	Victim’s inconsistent testimony about pain required directed verdict for insufficiency.	Denied; evidence legally sufficient and jury could resolve inconsistencies.
2. Legal sufficiency of conviction	Circumstantial and direct evidence permit inference of pain and bodily injury.	Conviction unsupported because victim denied/back pain inconsistency undermines bodily injury element.	Overruled; conviction supported under Jackson standard.
3. Continuance abuse of discretion	Continuance was short and for newly discovered jail-call records; no showing of prejudice.	Continuance caused additional jail time (186 days) and prejudiced Appellant.	No abuse; Appellant failed to show actual prejudice from short continuance.
4. Sixth Amendment speedy trial	Trial occurred within months; State says Appellant waived or cannot show presumptive prejudice.	Delay violated speedy trial rights (argued).	Overruled; Appellant did not show presumptively prejudicial delay to trigger Barker analysis.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury credibility/weight)
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewer’s duty when record supports conflicting inferences)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factfinder may infer pain from assault description)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
Gonzalez v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of presumptive-prejudice threshold)