Sampson Walter Graves v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00271-CR

Sampson Walter Graves,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas
Judge Thomas C. West, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 2024-1188-C1

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, Sampson Walter Graves was convicted of two

counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—one against James

Williamson, and one against Sheila Richardson—and sentenced to life in

prison for each count. We affirm the trial court’s judgments as modified.

BACKGROUND

Williamson’s neighbor, Sheila Richardson, was involved in a romantic
relationship with Graves prior to and on the day of the incident at issue. On

that day, Williamson was walking to his home at the Landing Townhomes

when he saw Richardson sitting in her parked vehicle as Graves, standing

outside of the vehicle, reached through the open window and hit her in the face

with a full beer can. Williamson approached the two, attempting to intervene

to help Richardson. Graves threatened to kill both Williamson and

Richardson. Graves also attempted to charge, swing, and grab at Williamson.

Graves’s movements were slow due to his apparent intoxication, so Williamson

was able to avoid the attempts. As Williamson tried to help Richardson out of

her car and to the gated pool area, Graves began ramming his truck into her

parked car. After Richardson got out of the vehicle, testimony indicates that

while the two were rushing toward the pool, Graves drove toward them and

stopped when his truck was within close proximity of the two. Shortly after,

as officers approached and police sirens could be heard, Graves left the scene.

Graves was caught after driving by the scene while officers were still

investigating the incident.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

On appeal, Graves contends that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction as to Count II, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against

Williamson. He does not challenge his conviction for the same offense

Graves v. State Page 2
committed against Richardson.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressed our standard of review of

a sufficiency issue as follows:

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, 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, 61 L. Ed.
2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App.
2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to the
responsibility of the trier of fact fairly 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. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment
for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting a sufficiency review
must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy but must
consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d
at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of
facts or evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable
inferences from the facts so long as each inference is supported by
the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We
presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences
from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that
resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the
facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to
the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are
equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be
sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of
all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the
conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App.
2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

Graves v. State Page 3
We measure whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to support a conviction by comparing it to “the elements of the
offense as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the
case.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
The hypothetically correct jury charge is one that
“accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does
not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or
unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and
adequately describes the particular offense for which the
defendant was tried.” Id.; see also Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d
654, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The “law as authorized by the
indictment” includes the statutory elements of the offense and
those elements as modified by the indictment. Daugherty, 387
S.W.3d at 665.

Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

Graves complains the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

because there was no direct evidence that the operation of the vehicle

“objectively constituted a threat of imminent bodily injury,” such as the speed,

acceleration, or trajectory of the truck during the incident. He contends that

the evidence on Count II consists almost entirely of the subjective belief of the

complainant that the defendant intended to strike him. We disagree with

Graves.

In this case, the evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Graves’s

conduct constituted an objective threat of bodily injury toward Williamson.

The evidence primarily consists of testimony from both complainants and an

eyewitness who saw the entire incident. Williamson arrived at the scene and

watched Graves hit Richardson in the face with a full beer can that spilled on

Graves v. State Page 4
her clothes upon impact. When Williamson intervened and told Graves to stop

hitting Richardson, Graves threatened that he would “kill [Williamson] too.”

Graves also began ramming his truck into Richardson’s vehicle while

Williamson was standing in the area. Further, Graves attempted to grab at

and hit Williamson, but Williamson was able to evade Graves’s movements.

Testimony from the Landing’s leasing agent, who was at the pool that

day with her sister-in-law, also supports the jury’s verdict. Although

Richardson testified that she did not remember what was said between

Williamson and Graves and she declined to make a statement as to whether

Graves directed his truck at her and Williamson, the leasing agent stated that

while Richardson was running to the pool area, the truck came within inches

of her. She also testified that when Richardson fell on the grass, Williamson

was behind her trying to assist her. Although he struck neither complainant

with his vehicle, the leasing agent stated that Graves “angrily” revved his

truck multiple times before leaving the scene.

Williamson also testified that Graves cut across the curb while trying to

prevent them from getting into the pool area. Further, Williamson stated that

Graves’s truck came within a few feet of him and Richardson.

Although there was no direct evidence as to the speed, acceleration, or

trajectory of the truck relative to Williamson at the time of the incident, the

Graves v. State Page 5
State may prove a defendant’s criminal culpability by either direct or

circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that

evidence. Gardner v. State, S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Circumstantial evidence is as equally probative as direct evidence, and

circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long

as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to

support the conviction. Zuniga, 551 S.W.3d at 732-733. The jury alone decides

whether to believe eyewitness testimony. Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 254

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and based on the cumulative force of all of the evidence, we

conclude that any reasonable trier of fact could have found that Graves’s

driving objectively constituted a threat of imminent injury.

Graves’s sole issue is overruled.

MODIFICATION OF THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT

The State contends that the trial court’s judgments of conviction

incorrectly reflect pleas of “Guilty” as to both counts of aggravated assault with

a deadly weapon. We agree, and the record supports the State’s assertion, that

Graves entered “Not Guilty” pleas.

We have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in

cases where there is non-reversible error. Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291,

Graves v. State Page 6
293 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck), overruled on other grounds by

Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref’d).

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgments of conviction to reflect pleas

of “Not Guilty” by Graves to each offense.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled Graves’s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial

court’s judgments as modified.

LEE HARRIS
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Modified and affirmed
Do not publish
CRPM

Graves v. State Page 7