In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-23-00119-CR ________________
TERRY EDWARD KEYLON JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-07-10585-CR ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Terry Edward Keylon Jr. (“Keylon”) guilty of the third-degree
felony offense of assault family violence with a prior conviction for assault family
violence strangulation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(2)(A). Keylon also
pleaded “true” to two felony enhancements, making him eligible for punishment as
a habitual offender. See id. § 12.42(d) (outlining enhanced punishment range for
habitual offenders). The jury found the enhancement paragraphs true, assessed
punishment at fifty years of confinement, and the trial court sentenced him
1 accordingly. Keylon challenges the trial court’s judgment, and in three issues, he
complains of certain evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment for the reasons discussed
below.
I. BACKGROUND AND TRIAL EVIDENCE
Keylon and “Lisa” were in a dating relationship and lived together on his
grandmother’s property in Montgomery County. 1 They were involved in a domestic 0 F
dispute that began on July 25, 2021, which continued into the early morning hours
of July 26, 2021. Shortly after the dispute, Lisa drove to a gas station where she
encountered two sheriff’s deputies, told them Keylon assaulted her, and showed
them her injuries, and they began investigating. A Montgomery County Grand Jury
indicted Keylon, and the indictment alleged that Keylon
on or about July 26, 2021, . . . did then and there intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to [Lisa], [] a person with whom the defendant has or has had a dating relationship, . . . by grabbing/squeezing/pushing with defendant’s hand,
And it is further presented . . . that before the commission of the offense alleged above, on April 11, 2016, in Cause Number 27436 in the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the offense of Assault Family Violence Strangulation, an offense under Chapter 19, Chapter 22, Section 20.03, Section 20.04, Section 21.11, or Section 25.11 of the Penal Code, against a person whose
1We refer to the victim by a pseudonym to conceal her identity. See Tex.
Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[ ]”). 2 relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.003, 71.005 or 71.0021(b) of the Family Code[.]
Keylon stipulated to the April 11, 2016, assault family violence conviction. With
this background in mind, we turn to the evidence adduced at trial.
A. Lisa’s Testimony
Lisa testified that on July 25 and 26, 2021, she and Keylon were in a dating
relationship and had been since October 2020. She testified that their relationship
was getting serious, and when this happened, she described him as her fiancé. In July
2021, they lived together in his “grandparents’ old house” in Montgomery County.
Lisa testified that late on the night of July 25, and into July 26, 2021, she and
Keylon had a fight. She explained it began after a night of drinking when Keylon
received a text message from a family member. Lisa testified they both drank heavily
that evening and were intoxicated. She estimated she drank a twelve-pack of beer.
She explained that he became more agitated when she decided it was time for bed
and wanted to stop drinking, but he wanted to continue drinking and drive around
the property on the side-by-side.
When Lisa did not want to ride around with him, they started arguing, and “it
just got physical.” She testified that Keylon put his hands on her first. She described
him grabbing her with both hands by her upper arms, squeezing, and pushing her
against the kitchen counter. She testified it did not hurt immediately when he
squeezed her arms but did later. She testified that they “were still yelling at each 3 other, and he was just shaking me up against the counter and the cabinets[,]” and did
so “[v]iolently.” When he did this, he caused her to hit her hip and back on the
countertops. During the altercation, Keylon also grabbed her tightly by the hair
behind her ears and was “[v]iolently” “slamming” her head against the cabinets, so
she reacted by grabbing his beard. She said that when he grabbed her hair it caused
her pain and ripped out some of her hair.
Lisa testified that “it was really physical,” and she “was scared.” She wanted
him to let her go, and although it lasted minutes, “it seemed like forever.” She
described her attempts to get away from him, and he eventually let her go. Lisa
testified she immediately grabbed her things and drove to a nearby gas station. About
twenty or thirty minutes after the assault, she approached some police officers she
encountered at the gas station. Lisa testified she asked them for help, because she
wanted her things out of the house and “didn’t know where else to go.” When she
met the police officers, she was crying, “scared, nervous[,]” and still in pain.
The officers began investigating and asked her what happened, collected
evidence, took photographs, then went to the residence to try to talk to Keylon.
During Lisa’s testimony, photographs of her injuries were admitted into evidence.
Lisa testified that when the officers photographed her, she was still in pain and
graded her pain as a level six out of ten. Lisa testified the photographs showed the
injuries caused by Keylon during the assault, including a mark on her cheek, missing
4 hair, a bite mark on her knuckle, and a swollen lip, among others. She also took
photographs of her injuries which were admitted into evidence showing her swollen
lip and redness around her shoulders and back. Lisa testified that she told prosecutors
and defense counsel that on July 26, 2021, Keylon assaulted her in Montgomery
County, Texas.
On cross-examination, Lisa testified that she was diabetic and could have
experienced a diabetic episode when this happened in addition to being intoxicated.
She also admitted that she did not remember most of the evening but remembered
“pieces” and explained there were some things that she remembered after watching
a video from that night. Lisa testified that she did not remember falling that night,
but she could have, but if she did it was because of him. She also testified she owns
and works with horses. Nevertheless, she denied that her level of intoxication,
diabetes, or a horse caused the injuries shown in the photographs.
B. Joshua Wright’s Testimony
Deputy Joshua Wright (“Wright”) with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s
Office also testified. He described his training relating to family violence and
testified he has investigated about one hundred family violence cases while working
as a sheriff’s deputy. Wright testified that in his experience, family violence victims
can be vulnerable and reluctant because of the relationship with their alleged abuser.
5 Wright testified that in the early morning hours of July 26, 2021, he was
patrolling near New Waverly, which is partially located within Montgomery County.
He stopped at a gas station to get coffee a little before 2 a.m. Two other officers
assisted with this investigation, but Wright was the primary investigating officer. As
he tried to enter the gas station, Lisa approached him. Wright testified that when she
approached, she “had obviously been crying, and she seemed, I guess, distraught.
She seemed very confused and possibly a little scared.” She then asked him a
question about a protective order, which raised his suspicions. Wright explained he
was concerned that there may have been a recent family violence incident that she
was asking about. After Lisa approached him, he began investigating.
Wright noticed injuries on her body, including swollen and possibly busted
lips, red puffy cheeks, and blood on her shirt. During the initial contact, there were
no other injuries apparent, but after he interviewed her, she showed Wright multiple
injuries. Although he did not identify the person who caused her injuries while he
was at the gas station, Wright later identified Keylon as that individual.
During his investigation, Wright interviewed Lisa and verified the address of
the assault, which is in Montgomery County. Once he learned the incident occurred
within Montgomery County and his patrol jurisdiction, he asked Lisa to describe that
night’s events. She still seemed “shaken” and “scared,” so he asked if she wanted to
sit in her vehicle, which is where he began his interview. Lisa told Wright that
6 Keylon was her fiancé, they lived together at the described location, had been
drinking alcohol, and were involved in a fight. Wright also had someone photograph
Lisa’s injuries, collected all the information he could about Keylon and the area he
was going to, then informed Lisa he was going to the residence to speak with Keylon.
Before he left the gas station, Lisa admitted having a few drinks and seemed
confused, but when she approached, he did not immediately know she was
intoxicated. Wright testified that although Lisa admitted being intoxicated, he did
not perform a DWI investigation. He also agreed that intoxicated individuals can be
irritable, agitated, belligerent, stumble, fall, and wreck their vehicles. Wright said
that when he left, she had the ability to drive and was free to go.
Wright testified that family violence calls are “[v]ery dangerous” and
explained why. He said the likelihood of a use of force or shooting is higher on these
cases when the deputies arrive to further investigate. When he arrived at the house,
it was consistent with Lisa’s description. He noted a back porch leading to a sliding
glass door that Lisa described, which is where he tried to contact Keylon. He also
observed a refrigerator that seemed out of place and consistent with what Lisa
mentioned at the gas station.
Wright drove his patrol car and was in uniform when he approached the house.
Wright testified that he announced himself as an officer, which included him
knocking loudly, saying “sheriff’s office,” and turning the flashlight on himself so
7 anyone could see his uniform. While at the glass door, Wright saw Keylon inside.
Wright explained that Keylon did not come to the door immediately, it took several
minutes, several loud knocks, and announcing his presence several times. He
described Keylon as “naked” and “very . . . agitated or angry that either I was there
or that I had woken him up.” Wright testified that it caught his attention that Keylon
was angry, there were “some hand gestures” and a “slurred voice[,]” which made
Wright believe Keylon might be intoxicated. He asked to talk with Keylon several
times. Wright said that Keylon eventually responded and told him, “[T]o get the f-
ck off his porch.”
Wright testified that he drove through an open gate onto the property without
a warrant and began banging on a glass door announcing himself at 3 a.m. He agreed
that might annoy someone, although Lisa consented to him going to the property to
investigate. Upon cross-examination, Wright testified that Keylon was likely
sleeping in the nude, and eventually tells him to get the “F” off his porch. At that
point, Wright left, because Keylon exercised his right not to talk and had no duty to
do so. Although Wright announced himself, he did not have the opportunity to tell
Keylon why he was there. Wright exercised his discretion and left the property when
Keylon told him to leave, but he had already established probable cause that Keylon
committed a family violence offense. He testified that he could have entered the
8 home that night and arrested Keylon but later applied for a warrant to arrest Keylon
on an assault family violence charge.
C. Keylon’s Testimony
Keylon also testified at trial. He testified that around 2015, he went to prison
after he pleaded guilty to felony charges arising from a single incident, which
included strangulation and assault on a public servant. In 2018, he pleaded no contest
to another felony charge of assault family violence and went to prison. After being
released from prison, Keylon moved to New Waverly and worked as a ranch hand
on his grandmother’s farm. He then started a business with Lisa, primarily building
fences and decks. In October 2020, Lisa began living with him, and they lived in his
great-grandmother’s old house. When this happened, they were in a dating
relationship, and at the time of trial they were still together and were still engaged.
Keylon testified that in July 2021, they drank every day and drank excessively.
On July 25, 2021, he and Lisa worked on a fence. After they finished working, they
bought alcohol and went home. When they arrived home, they “got stuff for the
grill,” and Keylon rode their horse around the property but could not recall if Lisa
rode the horse. He explained that they were intoxicated, and he probably drank “a
six-pack and a couple of 24-ounce Twisted teas[,]” but “Lisa normally drank twelve
to eighteen beers.” Keylon recalled that Lisa had fallen that night; his friend, Mr.
9 Bilnoski, was there and saw her fall at least once. Keylon also testified that he saw
her fall three times that day.
Keylon explained that he “said something stupid[,]” and Lisa got angry and
planned to leave. Keylon said Lisa then tripped over their large dog and fell. He
claimed he picked her up and moved her to the counter by the sink, but she “went
into full, defense mode.” Keylon testified that “[s]he grabbed my beard, kicked me
in the testicles, and the whole time, I was just trying to hold her because she’s
flailing.” After that, he told her to leave.
Keylon testified that he did not see any injuries on her at the time, but it
happened quickly. He believed Lisa sustained the injuries shown in the photographs
accidentally and offered various potential explanations, including from multiple
falls, working, horseback riding, being sunburned, and her being clumsy or reckless.
He did not recall everything that happened that night but remembered the gist of it.
He also said he went to bed, but she came in the room, and they continued arguing.
He characterized Lisa as “confused” that night and testified she told him she did not
remember what happened.
Keylon also testified that it was very rude for him to act the way he did toward
the officers that night. Keylon testified without objection that he told police, “Get
the f-ck out of here[]” when they came to his house.
10 D. Richard Todd Bilnoski’s Testimony
Richard Todd Bilnoski (“Bilnoski”) testified for the defense and is a friend of
Keylon and Lisa’s. Bilnoski said that on July 25, 2021, he was at their house from
about 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. He testified Keylon and Lisa were going to ride
horses and barbecue. He said, “Everything was normal.” Bilnoski had seen Lisa fall
many times, but that day, he saw her fall twice, although he did not see any injuries
on her. He specifically denied seeing the injuries on Lisa shown in the photographs.
Bilnoski testified he had never seen Keylon assault Lisa.
E. Additional Defense Witness Testimony
Two additional defense witnesses testified about Lisa falling on separate
occasions but did not testify about the incident. Ugene Kernan (“Kernan”) testified
that Keylon and Lisa are helping remodel his home. He met them after July 25, 2021,
and had no information to provide about the assault. Nevertheless, Kernan recalled
seeing Lisa fall once, and described her hands as “beat up pretty bad from hitting the
ground, one was swelling.”
Aaron Fuller (“Fuller”) is a contractor who had known Keylon and Lisa since
before the incident. Fuller never observed Keylon intoxicated before, but had seen
Lisa intoxicated enough that she fell on his wife’s puppy, which he described for the
jury.
11 F. Other Evidence
Additional evidence admitted at trial included maps of the home Lisa and
Keylon lived in, photographs of Lisa’s injuries, and Keylon’s stipulation to the April
11, 2016, assault family violence strangulation conviction, among other things. The
State also read Keylon’s stipulation to the prior assault family violence conviction
to the jury.
G. Evidentiary Objection
Before voir dire, the parties discussed a video that captures Keylon telling
officers who arrive at his residence to investigate, “F-ck off.” Keylon asserted that
the video of Keylon saying that is irrelevant, not probative and “highly prejudicial.”
The trial court instructed the State not to mention it during voir dire and told Keylon,
“When the time comes, object to it, approach.” The trial court also told the parties
that before any testimony, under Rule 403, it would perform a balancing test for
probative value.
Keylon did not object during Wright’s testimony that Keylon answered the
door naked. When the State asked Wright how Keylon responded to his request to
talk to him, Keylon objected and asked to approach the bench. Keylon asserted that:
(1) the State was “backdooring” the fact that Keylon exercised his Fifth Amendment
right; (2) it was very prejudicial and had no probative value; and (3) was irrelevant
to whether an assault happened that night. The State responded that had Keylon
12 simply declined to be interviewed, the State would not comment on it; instead,
Keylon chose to tell uniformed deputies standing at his door “to get the f-ck off his
property.” The State asserted it was an admission by a party opponent, it was more
probative than prejudicial since Keylon “chose the words to be confrontational when
they were attempting to further their investigation.” The State also noted that Keylon
was not under arrest at the time. The trial court allowed the question and testimony.
II. ISSUES ONE AND TWO: ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
In issues one and two, Keylon complains that the trial court erred by admitting
testimony from Deputy Wright that Keylon answered the door naked and told him
to “get the f-ck off his porch” the night of the incident because it was irrelevant, and
any probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. He also
contends that the erroneous admission of this testimony harmed him.
A. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse
of discretion and must uphold the trial court’s ruling if it was “within the zone of
reasonable disagreement.” Wells v. State, 611 S.W.3d 396, 427 (Tex. Crim. App.
2020) (citation omitted). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference
to any guiding rules and principles or acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Rhomer v.
State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). We uphold the trial court’s
decision if correct on any legal theory applicable to the case. De La Paz v. State, 279
13 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531, 538
(Tex. Crim. App. 2002). If the trial court erred in admitting or excluding evidence,
then we generally apply the harm standard in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
44.2(b), which requires us to disregard errors that do not affect substantial
rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); see also Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 218–
19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citation omitted).
B. Analysis
Error preservation is a systemic requirement and must be reviewed by an
appellate court, even when the issue is not raised by the parties. Bekendam v. State,
441 S.W.3d 295, 299 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
33.1 governs error preservation. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. A party cannot present a
complaint for appellate review unless the record shows that the party timely objected
or made a motion stating the grounds for the requested ruling, unless the grounds
were apparent from the context. Id. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see Null v. State, 690 S.W.3d 305,
318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024). A party must also obtain a ruling from the trial court
or object to the trial court’s refusal to rule on the objection. Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(2); Null, 690 S.W.3d at 318. Requiring a timely, specific objection serves
two purposes: (1) it informs the judge of the basis of the objection and gives him a
chance to rule; and (2) it provides opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to the
14 complaint. Null, 690 S.W.3d at 318; Williams v. State, 662 S.W.3d 452, 460 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2021) (citation omitted).
Generally, a party must continue to object each time inadmissible evidence is
offered. See Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting
Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); see also Tex. R.
App. P. 33.1. The exception to this is when a party obtains a running objection, or
the court hears the objection outside the jury’s presence. See Martinez, 98 S.W.3d at
193. Error in the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in
elsewhere without objection. Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004) (quoting Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)); see
also Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (explaining that
objection to evidence will not result in reversal when the same evidence was received
without an objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling).
Keylon failed to timely object to Wright’s testimony that he answered the door
naked. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Rather, the following exchange occurred:
[THE STATE]. And how would you describe Mr. Keylon’s appearance in the early morning hours of July 26th of 2021?
[WRIGHT]. Mr. Keylon was naked and was very, I would say, agitated or angry that either I was there or that I had woken him up.
The record shows the State asked Wright six more questions before Keylon objected.
He only objected and asked to approach the bench when the State asked Wright what
15 he said when he answered the door. Since Keylon failed to timely object to Wright’s
testimony that he answered the door naked, he has failed to preserve his complaint
to that testimony. See id.; Null, 690 S.W.3d at 318.
Keylon timely objected to Wright’s testimony that Keylon told him to “get
the f-ck off his porch[,]” and the trial court conducted a hearing outside the jury’s
presence regarding Wright’s testimony before ruling it was admissible. Yet Keylon
himself later offered substantially similar testimony without objection during cross-
examination. Keylon testified he was rude to the officer who came to his house and
that he told him, “Get the f-ck out of here.” Thus, any error in the complained-of
ruling regarding Wright’s testimony about how Keylon responded to him when he
arrived at Keylon’s home that night was cured when Keylon testified to the same
without objection. See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193; Leday, 983 S.W.2d at 718. We
overrule issues one and two.
III. ISSUE THREE: SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his third issue, Keylon complains that the evidence was legally insufficient
to support his conviction.
In evaluating legal sufficiency of the evidence to prove the charged offense,
we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
16 beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19
(1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also Metcalf
v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Under the Jackson standard,
we defer to the jury’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicting testimony, weigh
the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate
facts. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury as factfinder is the sole judge of the
weight of the evidence and witnesses’ credibility, and it may believe all, some, or
none of the testimony presented by the parties. Metcalf, 597 S.W.3d at 855 (citations
omitted). We do not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the
evidence, nor do we substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. See Williams
v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “Each fact need not point
directly and independently to a defendant’s guilt, as long as the cumulative force of
all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Balderas
v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citation omitted).
Keylon was charged with assault family violence with a prior assault family
violence conviction, which elevated the offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a
third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(2)(A). As alleged in
the indictment, and under the applicable statute, the State had to prove that: (1)
Keylon intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Lisa; (2) he
17 and Lisa were in a dating relationship as defined by Texas Family Code section
71.0021(b); and (3) he had a prior qualifying assault family violence conviction
dated April 11, 2016. See id.; see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.0021(b) (defining
dating relationship). The record shows that Keylon stipulated to the prior assault
family violence conviction. 2 Therefore, at issue is whether the evidence is sufficient 1 F
to support that he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Lisa
and that they were in a dating relationship.
Both Keylon and Lisa testified that they were in a dating relationship and
living together when this incident occurred. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.0021(b).
Keylon argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that he caused Lisa bodily
injury. “Bodily injury” is defined as “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of
physical condition.” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(8). Other courts have
concluded the State proved bodily injury where a victim complained of pain, had
“fresh scratch marks[,]” or had bruising. See Settlemyre v. State, 489 S.W.3d 607,
609 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2016, pet. ref’d); Nunez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 309, 323
2Stipulations “have the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing
wholly with the need for proof of the fact.” Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citation omitted). Therefore, a defense stipulation is a sufficient means of proving a prior conviction. Henry v. State, 509 S.W.3d 915, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 18 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (“Bruising is evidence of physical pain
sufficient to show ‘bodily injury.’”).
Lisa testified that Keylon grabbed her by the arms and shoved her into
cabinets, which caused her to hit her back and hip. She also described Keylon
grabbing her tightly by the hair behind her ears and “[v]iolently” “slamming” her
head against the cabinets. She said that when he grabbed her hair, it caused her pain
and ripped out some of her hair. She testified that when she spoke to officers shortly
after the incident, her pain was a six out of ten. Photographs of her injuries were also
admitted at trial, showing a busted lip, a bite mark on her finger, missing hair, and
red marks on her body. Lisa and other witnesses consistently testified that she was
drunk when the assault occurred. Additionally, Keylon offered contradictory
explanations for Lisa’s injuries including falling, working, or horseback riding. He
also testified that he simply helped her up after she fell.
The jury, as the sole trier of fact, was free to weigh the witnesses’ credibility
and resolve conflicts in the evidence and to believe Lisa’s version of events over
Keylon’s. See Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The
evidence showed that Lisa suffered pain, sustained a swollen lip, redness, and a bite
mark when Keylon assaulted her, which satisfies the “bodily injury” element. See
Settlemyre, 489 S.W.3d at 609; Nunez, 117 S.W.3d at 323. Based on the evidence, a
rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Keylon
19 knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused Lisa bodily injury, and they were in a
dating relationship. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1.07(a)(8), 22.01(a), (b)(2)(A).
Thus, the evidence was legally sufficient to support Keylon’s conviction. See
Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19; Metcalf, 597 S.W.3d at 855; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d
at 13. We overrule issue three.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled all Keylon’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice
Submitted on December 27, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 23, 2025 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.