COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00394-CR
WILLIAM ERNESTO PACHECO APPELLANT PERAZA A/K/A WILLIAM ERNESTO PERAZAPACHECO
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant William Ernesto Pacheco Peraza a/k/a William Ernesto
PerazaPacheco waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded not guilty to assault of
a family member with a previous conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
22.01(b)(2)(A) (West 2011). The trial court found William guilty and, after a
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. punishment hearing, sentenced him to five years’ confinement in the Institutional
Division of TDCJ. In one issue on appeal, William contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his conviction. We will affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
William and Emma Peraza married in 2006. They moved to Texas that
same year after Emma was diagnosed with leukemia. They have two children
together. In 2007 and again in 2008, William pleaded guilty to and was convicted
of assault against Emma. On June 28, 2009, William and Emma got into an
argument over a missed truck payment. Based on what transpired during their
argument, William was charged with assault of a family member with a previous
conviction.
At trial, Emma testified that a couple of weeks prior to the incident, she had
moved out of the house she shared with William because he hit her. She and the
children moved in with her parents. After William called her and agreed to get
counseling, she and the children moved back into the house. The day that
Emma moved back into the house, she told William that she had used the money
for their monthly truck payment for her chemotherapy. William got upset, and he
began throwing things and yelling at Emma. He pushed her down on the couch
and hit her in the face multiple times around the eye area. He left the room
briefly, returning with a pair of scissors. Emma testified that he tried to stab her
with the scissors but stopped when their children entered the room. Emma
2 asked William to let her and the children leave the house, and she promised not
to call the police. William left the house.
Emma did not have a phone so she went next door to ask if she could use
her neighbors’ phone to call the police. Both her next-door neighbors and her
neighbor across the street, Neal Moss, refused to allow Emma to use their
phones. Eventually, another neighbor let Emma borrow her phone, and Emma
called the police. The police arrived about thirty to forty-five minutes after the
incident. The responding officer, Officer Julisa Flores, took photos of Emma’s
injuries. Officer Flores testified that Emma was upset and crying when the officer
arrived. Officer Flores testified that Emma had cuts on her right side and that, by
the time the officer left, Emma’s right eye was swollen completely shut. Officer
Flores did not obtain any evidence from the scene other than the photos.
William testified that he and Emma had separated a few weeks prior to the
incident; he kicked her out of the house after learning that she had been
unfaithful to him. He testified that on the day of the incident, Emma brought the
children to the house to visit him. He testified that when he confronted Emma
about the missing truck payment, she did not indicate to him that she had used
the money for medical purposes. Rather, she laughed and said that she had
“wasted the money on other things.” William testified that Emma asked if she
could move back in with him. When he told her that he “didn’t want her back,”
Emma became angry and hit the stereo, knocking it to the ground. William left
the house because Emma was angry and frustrated; he walked over to Moss’s
3 house. About thirty minutes or an hour later, Emma came out of the house
yelling for help and saying that she needed a phone to call police. William got in
his truck and drove off to talk to his pastor. After viewing the photographs of
Emma’s injuries, admitted at trial as State’s Exhibits 4–10, William testified that
he did not cause the injuries to Emma’s face and that he did not hit her at all that
day. He also testified that he did not use any scissors to injure her that day.
Moss testified that he was sitting in front of his house with William when
Emma came out of her house and hollered, “Somebody call the police, . . . he
just beat me up.” Moss said that Emma did not specify who “he” was. He said
Emma did not ask to borrow his phone. Moss did not notice any injuries or torn
clothing on Emma.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue, William contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction.
A. Standard of Review
In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we view all of 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012).
4 This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct.
at 2789; Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
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, 364
S.W.3d at 903. 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, 443 U.S.
at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903.
B. Assault of a Family Member
A person commits assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse. Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1). The offense is enhanced to a third-degree felony
when “it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been
previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section
20.03, 20.04, 21.11, or 25.11 against a [family member].” Id. at § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
5 C. Evidence Is Sufficient
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00394-CR
WILLIAM ERNESTO PACHECO APPELLANT PERAZA A/K/A WILLIAM ERNESTO PERAZAPACHECO
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant William Ernesto Pacheco Peraza a/k/a William Ernesto
PerazaPacheco waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded not guilty to assault of
a family member with a previous conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
22.01(b)(2)(A) (West 2011). The trial court found William guilty and, after a
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. punishment hearing, sentenced him to five years’ confinement in the Institutional
Division of TDCJ. In one issue on appeal, William contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his conviction. We will affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
William and Emma Peraza married in 2006. They moved to Texas that
same year after Emma was diagnosed with leukemia. They have two children
together. In 2007 and again in 2008, William pleaded guilty to and was convicted
of assault against Emma. On June 28, 2009, William and Emma got into an
argument over a missed truck payment. Based on what transpired during their
argument, William was charged with assault of a family member with a previous
conviction.
At trial, Emma testified that a couple of weeks prior to the incident, she had
moved out of the house she shared with William because he hit her. She and the
children moved in with her parents. After William called her and agreed to get
counseling, she and the children moved back into the house. The day that
Emma moved back into the house, she told William that she had used the money
for their monthly truck payment for her chemotherapy. William got upset, and he
began throwing things and yelling at Emma. He pushed her down on the couch
and hit her in the face multiple times around the eye area. He left the room
briefly, returning with a pair of scissors. Emma testified that he tried to stab her
with the scissors but stopped when their children entered the room. Emma
2 asked William to let her and the children leave the house, and she promised not
to call the police. William left the house.
Emma did not have a phone so she went next door to ask if she could use
her neighbors’ phone to call the police. Both her next-door neighbors and her
neighbor across the street, Neal Moss, refused to allow Emma to use their
phones. Eventually, another neighbor let Emma borrow her phone, and Emma
called the police. The police arrived about thirty to forty-five minutes after the
incident. The responding officer, Officer Julisa Flores, took photos of Emma’s
injuries. Officer Flores testified that Emma was upset and crying when the officer
arrived. Officer Flores testified that Emma had cuts on her right side and that, by
the time the officer left, Emma’s right eye was swollen completely shut. Officer
Flores did not obtain any evidence from the scene other than the photos.
William testified that he and Emma had separated a few weeks prior to the
incident; he kicked her out of the house after learning that she had been
unfaithful to him. He testified that on the day of the incident, Emma brought the
children to the house to visit him. He testified that when he confronted Emma
about the missing truck payment, she did not indicate to him that she had used
the money for medical purposes. Rather, she laughed and said that she had
“wasted the money on other things.” William testified that Emma asked if she
could move back in with him. When he told her that he “didn’t want her back,”
Emma became angry and hit the stereo, knocking it to the ground. William left
the house because Emma was angry and frustrated; he walked over to Moss’s
3 house. About thirty minutes or an hour later, Emma came out of the house
yelling for help and saying that she needed a phone to call police. William got in
his truck and drove off to talk to his pastor. After viewing the photographs of
Emma’s injuries, admitted at trial as State’s Exhibits 4–10, William testified that
he did not cause the injuries to Emma’s face and that he did not hit her at all that
day. He also testified that he did not use any scissors to injure her that day.
Moss testified that he was sitting in front of his house with William when
Emma came out of her house and hollered, “Somebody call the police, . . . he
just beat me up.” Moss said that Emma did not specify who “he” was. He said
Emma did not ask to borrow his phone. Moss did not notice any injuries or torn
clothing on Emma.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue, William contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction.
A. Standard of Review
In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we view all of 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012).
4 This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct.
at 2789; Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
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, 364
S.W.3d at 903. 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, 443 U.S.
at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903.
B. Assault of a Family Member
A person commits assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse. Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1). The offense is enhanced to a third-degree felony
when “it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been
previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section
20.03, 20.04, 21.11, or 25.11 against a [family member].” Id. at § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
5 C. Evidence Is Sufficient
Here, William argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction specifically because: (1) Emma’s eye injuries could have occurred
after he left the house; (2) the scratches to Emma’s body are inconsistent with
the type of injuries that scissors would cause; (3) Moss testified that he did not
observe injuries to or torn clothing on Emma immediately following the argument;
and (4) Emma did not clearly identify William in court as the perpetrator.
The trial judge, as the factfinder, heard evidence that William got mad at
Emma and that he hit her in the face with his hand multiple times. He heard
evidence that Emma and William engaged in a struggle in which he tried to stab
her with a pair of scissors. He saw State’s Exhibits 4–10, which show Emma
with a swollen eye, bruises on her face, a torn shirt, and scratch marks on her
chest. He also saw State’s Exhibits 1–3, showing William’s prior convictions for
assault against Emma.
Despite William’s contention that it would be unusual for an eye to take
forty-five minutes to swell shut and despite his contention that an injury from
scissors would be a gash wound, not a scratch, it was up to the trial judge, as the
factfinder, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to
determine whether Emma’s testimony was credible. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903; Blackman, 350 S.W.3d at 595.
The trial judge determined that Emma’s testimony was credible. Finally, contrary
6 to William’s assertion on appeal, Emma did clearly identify William in court; she
testified that he was her husband and the person who assaulted her.2
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s verdict,
we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt
that William committed the offense of assault of a family member with a previous
conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(A); Jackson, 443 U.S. at
326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903. Accordingly, we hold that the
evidence is sufficient to support William’s conviction. We overrule William’s sole
issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled William’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 15, 2013
2 Counsel for the State asked Emma if she saw her “husband, the Defendant, William Peraza Pacheco” in the courtroom. She said that she did, and the record reflects she pointed him out when asked by the prosecutor to “point in [William’s] general direction.” 7