Rodney Kevin Coleman v. the State of Texas, 14-19-01016-CR

Background

Coleman was indicted for third-degree felony family-violence assault (second offender) after an officer observed him slap and hit the complainant in a moving car; the officer followed, called 9-1-1, and stopped the vehicle after the complainant exited into the roadway.
The 9-1-1 recording captured the officer reporting “a male beating a woman” and the complainant saying “he was hitting me.”
The complainant did not testify at trial; a deputy who investigated observed redness on her face consistent with being struck.
The State introduced a certified 2007 conviction for “Assault Family Member” as the prior family-violence conviction alleged in the indictment.
The State played a recorded jail phone call showing intimate language between Coleman and the complainant and proved Coleman made ~297 phone calls to her over one year (many ~20 minutes), offered to show a dating relationship.
A jury convicted Coleman; the trial court found two habitual-offender enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced him to 25 years. Coleman appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — bodily injury (element)	State: officer observed blows, 9-1-1 and deputy’s observations support inference of physical pain.	Coleman: no bruise/cut, complainant didn’t testify, redness could be from a fall.	Evidence sufficient to infer bodily injury; minor pain suffices.
Sufficiency — mens rea (intent/knowingly)	State: eyewitness and 9-1-1 show Coleman intentionally hit complainant.	Coleman: complainant absent; could have been the aggressor; no clear proof who started it.	Evidence sufficient for intentional/knowing finding.
Sufficiency — dating relationship	State: intimate jail call content and ~300 calls in a year show continuing romantic/intimate relationship.	Coleman: no explicit labels or timeline in the call; could be casual acquaintances.	Evidence sufficient to establish a dating relationship.
Variance — prior conviction alleged as against household member	State: produced certified judgment showing prior ‘‘Assault Family Member’’ conviction with family-violence finding.	Coleman: prior judgment didn’t expressly show the prior victim was a household member as alleged in indictment.	Any variance immaterial; indictment gave precise cause/date and defendant had notice.
Habitual-offender enhancement	State: section 22.01 does not preclude using prior family-violence felonies to enhance under §12.42(d).	Coleman: prior family-violence convictions used to elevate the offense cannot also be reused to enhance punishment under habitual-offender statute.	Section 22.01(b)(2)(A) is not a special enhancement statute that bars §12.42(d); enhancements valid and sentence lawful.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard under due process)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (definition of hypothetically correct jury charge)
Ramjattansingh v. State, 548 S.W.3d 540 (application of Malik and variance materiality rules)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (any physical pain, however minor, suffices for bodily injury)
Sanchez v. State, 499 S.W.3d 438 (definition and factors for dating relationship)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (variance and when proof shows a different offense)
Rawlings v. State, 602 S.W.2d 268 (example of special enhancement statute precluding further enhancement)
Edwards v. State, 313 S.W.2d 618 (prior case holding a specific DUI statute precluded general enhancement)