Ramos, Andy Torres, PD-1097-15

Appellant Andy Torres Ramos was tried for aggravated assault (vehicle as deadly weapon) for an incident on July 14, 2013; a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment (suspended to community supervision).
Victim Victoria Martinez testified Ramos drove off with her, argued about sex/phone, she tried to exit, was pulled back by her purse strap, pushed out of the car, and felt the rear driver-side tire go over her back; she suffered bruises/abrasions and was treated and released same day.
Deputies photographed minor injuries (hands, leg, neck, torso) and recovered Martinez’s purse from Ramos’s car, which contained hydrocodone pills; Martinez had prior hydrocodone dependence and denied the pills belonged to her at trial.
Several eyewitnesses saw a woman screaming in a white Mustang and later saw her on the ground, but none observed the car actually strike or run over her.
Ramos and defense witnesses testified he was trying to restrain Martinez from jumping out and to prevent her self-harm related to prescription-pill use; Ramos denied running her over or intentionally pushing her under the tire.
The jury credited the victim’s testimony; the court of appeals affirmed. Ramos appealed only on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ramos)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated assault (vehicle as deadly weapon)	Victim’s testimony that Ramos struck her with his car and caused bodily injury was sufficient for a rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Testimony was unreliable/incredible: no eyewitness saw the car strike her, injuries were minor, evidence showed Ramos tried to prevent self-harm and victim had prior drug dependence and emotional issues	Affirmed — Victim’s testimony alone sufficed; credibility/resolution of conflicts for the jury; evidence legally sufficient under Jackson standard

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence — review in light most favorable to verdict)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury fact-findings; not a thirteenth juror)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (give deference to trier of fact to resolve conflicts and draw inferences)
Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (presume jury resolved conflicting inferences in favor of prosecution)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (measure sufficiency by hypothetically correct jury charge)
Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (application of Jackson standard)