Michael Lee McDaniel v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued January 19, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00107-CR

———————————

Michael Lee MCDaniel, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1254831

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant, Michael Lee McDaniel, of aggravated assault on a public servant and assessed punishment at seven years in prison.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01, 22.02 (West 2011).  In his sole issue, McDaniel contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because there was no evidence of intent.  We affirm.

Background

Houston Police Department Officers B. Wright, O. Brown, and L. Menendez-Sierra received a call about a weapons disturbance at an apartment complex near their patrol areas.  All three uniformed officers went to the apartment complex.  Officer Menendez-Sierra spoke to William Johnson, who had made the report.  Officers Wright and Brown stood nearby and listened to the conversation.  Johnson informed them that his roommate, McDaniel, had locked him out of their apartment after threatening to use a gun.  Johnson showed the officers where the apartment was, and then, at the officers’ instruction, waited where he could not be seen from the apartment. 

It was approximately midnight, but all three officers testified that there was enough light outside McDaniel’s apartment to see their uniforms.  Brown testified that he turned up the volume on his police radio “so that the person inside will know that it is police outside the door and it is not . . . anybody returning to the door, like, playing a joke on them or . . . saying that they are [] police to get back into the residence.”  Wright knocked forcefully on the door and announced loudly, “Houston Police Department,” three times, using three short knocks each time for a total of nine knocks on McDaniel’s door.  All three police officers testified that when McDaniel opened the door, he was holding near his waist a 9 mm black semiautomatic pistol, which was pointed in their general direction.  Wright commanded McDaniel to drop the weapon.  Instead of dropping the weapon, McDaniel pointed it directly at Wright and Menendez-Sierra, who were standing close by.  Wright then stepped in front of Brown and Menendez-Sierra, tackled McDaniel to the ground knocking the gun out of his hand, and subdued McDaniel with force.  Wright testified that he later asked McDaniel, “Didn’t you know it is police at the door?” and McDaniel replied that he was trying to scare his roommate.

After Wright subdued McDaniel, Menendez-Sierra located the gun, which was within McDaniel’s reach.  The gun was “unloaded” in the sense that there was no bullet in the chamber, but the magazine was in the gun and filled with eight bullets.  At trial, Menendez-Sierra demonstrated how a bullet from the magazine clip could be chambered in less than three seconds.

All three police officers testified that when McDaniel pointed the gun at them, they feared for their lives and felt threatened, and Brown and Menendez-Sierra testified that they probably would have shot McDaniel if Wright had not stepped in front of them.  All three police officers testified that a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol is a firearm, and Wright and Sierra-Menendez testified that it is also a deadly weapon.

McDaniel did not testify, and he presented only one witness, who was not present during the alleged altercation with Johnson or when the police arrived and could not tell the jury anything else about the case.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his sole issue, McDaniel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he acted with the intent necessary to commit aggravated assault.  Specifically, he argues that his statement that he was trying to scare his roommate suggests that he thought his roommate was at the door and that he was surprised by the police.  He also points to the facts that the officers did not activate their sirens when approaching the apartment complex and that the gun was unloaded.

We review the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction to determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979.  As the exclusive judge of the facts, the jury may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony.  Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  The jury, which heard testimony from the witnesses, was in the best position to weigh the evidence, and on appeal the court will defer to the jury’s assessment of credibility under these circumstances. See Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

A person commits aggravated assault if he intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a)(2), 22.02(a)(2).  An offense under section 22.02 is a first degree felony if it is committed against a person the defendant knows is a public servant while that person is lawfully discharging an official duty.  Id. § 22.02(b)(2)(B).  “The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant . . . if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person’s employment as a public servant . . . .”  Id. § 22.02(c).

McDaniel’s argument that he was trying to scare his roommate implies that he did not know that he was pointing his gun at police officers.  However, the evidence introduced at trial demonstrated that all three officers were wearing police uniforms, there was enough light outside McDaniel’s door to see the uniforms, three times Officer Wright knocked and loudly announced, “Houston Police Department,” and Officer Brown had turned up the volume on his police radio as high as it would go and changed the station to be certain that police radio sounds would be audible.  In addition, the evidence showed that it was only after McDaniel opened the door and Wright commanded him to drop the weapon that McDaniel raised his gun and pointed it directly at the police officers.  Although the officers testified that they did not activate their sirens in response to the weapons disturbance call, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that McDaniel saw the officers in their uniforms before pointing the gun at them.

The evidence also showed that the 9 mm semiautomatic pistol used by McDaniel was a firearm and a deadly weapon, that the officers felt threatened and feared for their lives when McDaniel pointed it at them, and that, although there was no bullet in the chamber, McDaniel could have fired the gun within less than three seconds because of the ease and speed with which a bullet from the magazine could be chambered.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that McDaniel acted knowingly and intentionally in threatening Officer Menendez-Sierra with imminent bodily injury by pointing a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol at him.  See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789.  We hold that the evidence was legally sufficient, and we overrule McDaniel’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                          Michael Massengale

                                                          Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.

Do not publish.   Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).