Clarence Lovett Watson v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed November 6, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00049-CR
__________

CLARENCE LOVETT WATSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause B-23-0099-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury found Appellant, Clarence Lovett Watson, guilty of the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2024). After Appellant pled “true” to an
enhancement allegation, the jury found the enhancement to be “true” and assessed
his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice for fifty years. In a single issue, Appellant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.
Background Facts
On November 4, 2022, Marcus Phillips woke up at approximately 6:30 a.m.
and, as he typically does, checked the motion cameras positioned around the exterior
of his home to see if anything had been captured by the cameras. He saw that at
approximately 3:30 a.m., one camera had captured Appellant walking up to the front
steps of Phillips’s home and setting something down in front of the front door.
Another camera captured Appellant walking away, past Phillips’s vehicles.
At approximately 7:00 a.m., Phillips, carrying a flashlight, checked on his
vehicles that were parked in his carport. Phillips found no damage to the vehicles
but heard a noise behind him, and when he turned he saw Appellant walking across
the street toward him.
Phillips testified that Appellant’s demeanor was “[v]ery aggressive” as he
approached. Appellant shouted that Phillips and his wife had been in Appellant’s
home and that they “were going to cause [Appellant] harm and he was sick of it and
tired of it.”
In response, Phillips—then a deputy with the Ector County Sheriff’s
Department—called the sheriff’s office dispatch and alerted dispatch of the situation
and requested emergency assistance. During the call, Phillips noticed that Appellant
was holding a knife or “some type of object” in his hand. He asked Appellant what
was in his hand. Appellant responded that it was a knife and threatened to kill
Phillips. This exchange can be heard on the dispatch call, which was published to
the jury. Phillips and Appellant were approximately five to six feet apart at that
time.
Phillips described the object in Appellant’s hand as a dark-colored
pocketknife. Phillips demonstrated at trial how Appellant was holding the knife
2
during the assault: in the middle with part of the blade sticking out from his hand
and his thumb on the blade.
As Phillips backed toward his house and reentered his house, Appellant
continued to threaten him. On the dispatch call, Appellant can be heard repeatedly
threatening to kill Phillips, and this exchange is depicted on video recorded by
Phillips’s motion cameras, which were also published to the jury. At this time,
Phillips and Appellant were around twenty feet away from one another. Phillips
testified that Appellant’s actions led him to feel threatened.
Deputies from the sheriff’s office responded to the scene. Deputy Dustin
Fowler and Deputy Ryan Kelly with the Ector County Sheriff’s Office were among
those that responded and testified at trial. Deputy Kelly testified that he ultimately
detained Appellant, who had returned to his home after the incident. While
Appellant was detained, he told Deputy Kelly that he left everything he had “on the
table” inside his home.
Deputy Fowler entered Appellant’s home with permission from another
person living inside. Deputy Fowler asked him if Appellant usually carried a knife,
and in response, he showed Deputy Fowler a folding pocketknife on the kitchen
counter.
Deputy Fowler called Deputy Kelly into the home to see the knife on the
kitchen counter. Deputy Kelly testified that he did not collect the knife at the scene
because he was not “comfortable collecting the knife without a search warrant.” As
a result, the knife brandished by Appellant was not offered at trial. Instead, evidence
of the knife was presented through the Axon bodycam video from Deputies Fowler
and Kelly.
Deputy Fowler, who had experience with electrical work, noted the knife was
a Klein Tools brand and of the kind commonly used for electrical work. At trial,
Deputy Fowler explained that these knives are “very sharp” to allow them to cut
3
through insulated copper wire. Deputy Fowler testified that the knife was about the
size of his hand while open and approximately five to six inches in length while
closed. He further testified that the knife found in Appellant’s home was consistent
with Phillips’s description of the weapon and that he had reason to believe it
belonged to Appellant.
At trial, Phillips also stated that the pocketknife found in Appellant’s home
was consistent with what he saw in Appellant’s hand during the encounter. Phillips
testified that he was “[a] hundred percent” certain that the item in Appellant’s hand
during the assault was a knife.
Analysis
In a single issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he used or exhibited
a deadly weapon during the assault. He contends that, as a result, “no rational jury
could have found the essential elements of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Appellant asks this court to reform the judgment to
delete the deadly weapon finding, to reflect a conviction for the lesser included
offense of assault and then remand the case for a new punishment hearing. See
Britain v. State, 412 S.W.3d 518, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (A court of appeals
may reform a judgment to a lesser-included offense where the evidence is legally
insufficient as to an aggravating element.).
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard
of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323
S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89
(Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, we review all
of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
4
reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
When conducting a sufficiency review, we defer to the factfinder’s role as the
sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight their testimony is to be
afforded. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Brooks, 323 S.W.3d
at 899. This standard accounts for the factfinder’s duty 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; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). When the record supports conflicting inferences, we
presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to
that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.
It is not necessary that the evidence directly proves the defendant’s guilt;
circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing a
defendant’s guilt, and circumstantial evidence can alone be sufficient to establish
guilt. Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Each fact need not
point directly and independently to guilt if the cumulative force of all incriminating
circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Because evidence must be considered cumulatively, appellate courts are not
permitted to use a “divide and conquer” strategy for evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence. Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Instead,
appellate courts must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa v.
State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
We measure sufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the offense as
defined in a hypothetically correct charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct charge is one that “accurately
sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the
5
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.
As relevant to this case, a person commits an assault if he intentionally or
knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury. PENAL § 22.01(a)(2). A
person commits an aggravated assault if the person uses or exhibits a deadly weapon
during the commission of the assault. Id. § 22.02(a)(2). In this regard, the
indictment charged Appellant with intentionally and knowingly threatening Phillips
with imminent bodily injury by pointing a deadly weapon in the form of a knife in
his direction. A “deadly weapon” includes “anything that in the manner of its use
or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id.
§ 1.07(a)(17)(B).
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he used or
exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault. Appellant contends
that, by failing to produce a recovered weapon to the jury, “the State failed to
sufficiently prove that [Appellant] had any weapon, let alone a deadly weapon, in
his hand.” Here, despite not introducing the knife into evidence, the State presented
other sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Appellant used or exhibited a knife
during the assault.
At trial, Phillips described the knife as a dark-colored pocketknife, testified
that Appellant told him he had a knife, and demonstrated how Appellant held the
knife. He further testified that he felt threatened during the encounter and that he
was “[a] hundred percent” positive Appellant held a knife. The testimony of a single
eyewitness can be enough to support a conviction. See Aguilar v. State, 468 S.W.2d
75, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). In this regard, we must defer to the jury’s
determinations concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence presented at
trial. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d 899.

6
Going beyond Phillips’s testimony, Appellant stated that he held a knife, as
can be heard during the dispatch call. Given this, a rational jury could have
concluded that Appellant used or exhibited a knife during the assault.
The evidence further showed that a knife that matched Phillips’s description
was later found in Appellant’s home, which the State presented to the jury through
Deputy Fowler’s and Deputy Kelly’s bodycam footage. In this regard, when
Appellant was detained, Deputy Kelly asked if he had any weapons or knives on him
and Appellant stated that he left everything he had “on the table.” Appellant’s
roommate confirmed that Appellant carried a black pocketknife and located it on the
kitchen counter. Deputy Fowler testified that the knife the deputies found was
consistent with what Phillips described. Phillips also testified that the knife found
was consistent with what he saw in Appellant’s hand.
Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the State is not required to introduce a
knife into evidence at trial to prove that the knife was a deadly weapon. See
Morales v. State, 633 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Instead, the State
may present other evidence to prove that a knife was wielded as a deadly weapon
during the assault. See id.; see also Magana v. State, 230 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d) (relying on other evidence to find a knife was
a deadly weapon where the knife was not presented at trial).
The State further presented evidence showing that Appellant repeatedly
threatened Phillips while wielding the knife. Courts have consistently relied on
threatening behavior to support a finding of a deadly weapon. See, e.g., Johnson v.
State, 509 S.W.3d 320, 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (noting that the jury could have
inferred from appellant’s threats, his proximity to the victim, and his brandishing of
the knife that the manner in which he intended to use the knife rendered it capable
of causing serious bodily injury or death); Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 92, 96–97
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding that the appellant displaying a knife
7
“in a manner conveying an express or implied threat that serious bodily injury or
death will result if the aggressor is not satisfied” is sufficient to show that the knife
used was a deadly weapon).
Appellant used the knife to threaten Phillips multiple times, including while
Phillips was only five to six feet away. When Appellant first told Phillips he had a
knife, he immediately threatened to kill Phillips—revealing the manner in which
Appellant intended to use the knife. Phillips described Appellant’s demeanor as
“very aggressive” during the encounter. He continued to threaten to kill Phillips as
Phillips retreated and entered his home. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to
conclude that Appellant wielded a knife during the assault.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of
the assault. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.
This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

November 6, 2025

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

8