Roberto Avalos Beltran A/K/A Roberto Abablos Beltran v. State
This text of Roberto Avalos Beltran A/K/A Roberto Abablos Beltran v. State (Roberto Avalos Beltran A/K/A Roberto Abablos Beltran v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00193-CR
ROBERTO AVALOS BELTRAN APPELLANT A/K/A ROBERTO ABABLOS BELTRAN
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Roberto Avalos Beltran a/k/a Roberto Abablos Beltran appeals his
conviction and eight-year sentence for sexual assault. We affirm.
Appellant’s ex-wife testified that while their divorce was pending, he forced
her to have sex against her will after coming to her house to talk her out of
divorcing him. She had put a recording device in her pocket hoping to gain 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. information to use against him in the divorce; the audio recording she made was
played at trial, and the jury was given an English-version transcript as a jury aid.
The evidence shows that when appellant arrived at the house, he told his
ex-wife several times that he would not divorce her, and she repeatedly said that
she did not want to be married to him. The evidence also shows that she tried to
avoid his physical advances by making excuses and telling him she did not want
to be with him. They struggled, and she tried to get out the door, but he pulled
her to the floor. She repeatedly told appellant no and begged him to stop, but he
told her that she was his wife and that he had the right to have sex with her. She
testified that after appellant pulled her to the floor, she tried to get her neighbors’
attention, but he covered her mouth with his hand. When she tried to use her
phone, he took it from her and threw it. He then forced her to have sex, holding
her hands down by her wrists. On the recording, she repeatedly says no and
cries out to “Dios.”
After appellant left, his ex-wife called the police; one of the responding
officers testified that she was visibly upset and crying when he arrived. The
officer testified about what she told him that day; the account is consistent with
her trial testimony. Additionally, she was examined by a nurse that same day,
who testified at trial that she had visible bruising to her hands and wrists
consistent with her account of the sexual assault.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that the sex
was not consensual; he contends the evidence also showed that his ex-wife is
2 not a legal resident and had a motive to lie so that she could get “some type of
legal status” as the victim of a sexual assault.
The essence of appellant’s argument is that his ex-wife’s testimony was
not credible. The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the
evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Wise v.
State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Thus, when performing an
evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility
of the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Isassi v.
State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Instead, we determine
whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the cumulative
force of the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). We must
presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the
verdict and defer to that resolution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326, 99 S.
Ct. 2781, 2793 (1979); Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903.
Here, the testimony of appellant’s ex-wife––along with the audio recording,
nurse examiner’s testimony, and testimony of the police officer who responded to
her 911 call––were sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.011(a)(1), (b)(1) (West 2011). We overrule appellant’s sole point and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON C.J.; DAUPHINOT and MCCOY, JJ.
3 DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 16, 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roberto Avalos Beltran A/K/A Roberto Abablos Beltran v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberto-avalos-beltran-aka-roberto-abablos-beltran-v-state-texapp-2013.