Billy Joel Graham v. the State of TexasBilly Joel Graham v. the State of Texas
AFFIRMED
Billy Joel Graham appeals his conviction for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Graham argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. Because we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm.
In the early morning of January 13, 2024, an argument arose between Graham and his estranged wife, Bianca.1 This argument escalated until Graham pushed Bianca, resulting in a fractured ankle.
On April 12, 2025, a grand jury indicted Graham for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, a second-degree felony.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Graham argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, Graham contends that the State failed to establish that Bianca‘s injury constituted serious bodily injury. We disagree.
1. Standard of Review
Under Jackson v. Virginia, we review “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Direct evidence is not necessary to prove the defendant‘s guilt; instead, circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt and is just as probative as direct evidence. Id. Because this standard recognizes the trier of fact as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, we determine whether their drawn
In this case, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (2) caused serious bodily injury to Bianca. Serious bodily injury is defined as “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”
2. The Evidence is Legally Sufficient
At trial, the State offered evidence establishing that on the night of the incident, Bianca visited Graham‘s residence after a night of drinking with her friends and sister, Lorayna Soliz. She and Graham were in a heated argument, which reached its flashpoint when Graham utilized both hands to push Bianca. Bianca fell off Graham‘s porch—which was raised roughly two feet above ground level—and broke her ankle.
Bianca testified that Soliz and Graham took her to the hospital in Jourdanton; however, she was transferred to San Antonio for emergency surgery. According to her medical records, Bianca was diagnosed with a grade I open fracture. Although there were no photos or expert testimony describing the injury, Graham stated during his custodial interrogation that “whenever [he] was in the hospital and they were taking [Bianca‘s] boot off” to assess her injury he noticed “it kind of like poking out” and that seeing “it f—ked [him] up” and he “almost [] threw up.”
When asked about the extent of her ankle injury, she was not “exactly sure if [the surgeons] were able to put [her] ankle back together because of how bad the fracture was.” However, she
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Bianca‘s injury was serious enough to constitute a serious bodily injury. Carrizales, 414 S.W.3d at 742. The record shows she suffered an open fracture requiring emergency surgery, a metal plate and six screws to hold the bone in place, a main bone that will never fully heal, ongoing nerve damage, and a permanent limp. This evidence shows protracted loss or impairment of the function of her ankle. See
Graham argues that the parties and trial court should have used the term “serious bodily injury” during trial. He cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. We decline to adopt it. Graham also argues that expert testimony was required to establish that Bianca‘s injury rose to the level of “serious bodily injury.” The Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected any such requirement. Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).
Finally, Graham contends that the poor medical care Bianca received—rather than his actions—caused the protracted loss or impairment of her ankle. A defendant remains criminally
Graham‘s sole issue on appeal is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment
Velia J. Meza, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH