Charles Teague v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 2, 2006
• Docket: 13-04-00577-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-04-577-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

CHARLES TEAGUE,                                                                       Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza          

Charles Teague appeals the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (i.e., his foot).  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2004‑05).  The record includes testimony from the complainant that appellant knocked the complainant down and kicked her in the face, in addition to testimony from two eyewitnesses who saw appellant knock the complainant down and Akick the holy hell out of her.@  Whether viewed in a neutral light or the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence suffices to prove appellant=s guilt and his issue is therefore overruled.^[1]       Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

_______________________

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Do not publish.                                             

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 2nd day of February, 2006.

---

^[1] The standards of review for legal and factual sufficiency challenges are settled.  See Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating the standard of review for legal sufficiency challenges); see also Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (stating the standard of review for factual sufficiency challenges).  Appellant=s brief does not specify whether his sufficiency challenge is based on legal or factual grounds, but in the interest of justice we address both possibilities.