Travis Shawn Monaghan v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed January 9, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00240-CR
__________

TRAVIS SHAWN MONAGHAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 28835-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a two-count indictment, Appellant, Travis Shawn Monaghan, was charged
with the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery (Count One) and the
second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault, by striking Gregory Webb on
or about the head with his hand or an unknown object, causing Webb to sustain
serious bodily injury (Count Two). TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03(a)(1),
22.02(a)(1) (West 2019 & Supp. 2024). The jury acquitted Appellant of aggravated
robbery but found him guilty of aggravated assault. After Appellant pled “true” to
the enhancement allegation, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at thirty
years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction for aggravated assault. We affirm.
I. Factual Background
On April 20, 2018, Webb’s father received a phone call from an unknown
number; a male whose voice he did not recognize made the call. The male caller
told Webb’s father that he had rescued Webb, who “had been beaten by two [B]lack
people” and was severely injured. The caller then specifically requested that Webb’s
mother travel to Abilene to take Webb to a proper facility for medical care. Webb’s
father became suspicious of the caller, and because he lived approximately sixty
miles from Webb, he called the Abilene Police Department (APD) to report that his
son had been assaulted.
Around 2:40 a.m. the same day, APD Officer Brady Broyles was dispatched
to Webb’s apartment. Webb answered the door. According to Officer Broyles, it
appeared that Webb had been recently assaulted—his left eye was almost swollen
shut, and Officer Broyles observed that Webb appeared to be scared. Two other
individuals, Appellant and James Sims, were also present in Webb’s apartment.
Webb told Officer Broyles that he had been assaulted “outside” in the apartment
complex, and that he did not know what had occurred or who had assaulted him.
Webb also told Officer Broyles that he wanted to go back to bed because he was in
pain. While Officer Broyles was speaking with Webb, he noticed Webb signal to
him that he wanted the other men to leave his apartment. Officer Broyles then
instructed Appellant and Sims to step outside.

2
Officer Broyles spoke to Appellant outside the apartment. Officer Broyles
testified that he “lost track” of the various explanations Appellant provided as to
why he was at Webb’s apartment that night. Initially, Appellant told Officer Broyles
that “some guys . . . from upstairs” attacked Webb and that he came over to check
on him. Later, Appellant stated that Webb went to “[the] wrong hookup” to get
drugs and that an individual decided to “jack him.” Appellant also told Officer
Broyles that he was not present when Webb was assaulted. However, after Officer
Broyles observed blood stains on Appellant’s clothes and questioned Appellant
about them, Appellant then told the officer that the blood on his shirt was from those
who had jumped Webb.
Officer Broyles testified that Appellant was unable to recall Webb’s name
during their interaction, and he believed that Appellant “was under the influence of
something” at that time. Officer Broyles took photographs of Appellant and Sims
and instructed them to leave the premises. Officer Broyles then returned to the
apartment to speak to Webb, but Webb did not answer the door. Officer Broyles’s
photographs of Appellant and Sims—as well as his body camera footage of his
contact with Webb, Appellant, and Sims—were admitted and published to the jury
at trial.
Around 4:00 a.m., APD Officer Jay Young 1 responded to a disturbance
between Appellant and Sims near Webb’s apartment. Officer Young observed blood
on Appellant’s breast pocket and stated that Appellant was unable to follow basic
instructions. Officer Young searched Appellant’s backpack and found a pill bottle
of medication that belonged to Webb. At some point during their interaction, Officer
Young determined that Appellant was “under the influence of some kind of

Prior to trial, Officer Jay Shafer changed her name to Jay Young. We will refer to her as “Officer
1

Young” in this opinion.

3
substance,” and she arrested Appellant for public intoxication and possession of a
dangerous drug. Officer Broyles was also present during the arrest. Appellant’s
arrest was captured and recorded by the dash camera in Officer Young’s patrol unit
and the recording was published to the jury at trial.
Dr. John Russell, an emergency physician, testified that he treated Webb’s
injuries on the afternoon of April 20. Dr. Russell recalled that Webb had multiple
lacerations as well as maxillary and orbital fractures to his face. Based on the injury
pattern to Webb’s face, Dr. Russell believed that Webb had been struck about his
face multiple times. Dr. Russell testified that Webb told him that he was walking
his dog, “and he came in and at some point lost consciousness and woke up with ten
unknown people in his home.”
Dr. Russell testified that Webb’s injuries were consistent with someone being
struck by a blunt object. Dr. Russell stated that the types of injuries that Webb
sustained were caused by a significant amount of force, and that he has observed
similar injuries to patients that have been struck in the face with a pipe. According
to Dr. Russell, it is more likely that Webb’s injuries were caused by an object rather
than a fist. Webb underwent facial reconstruction surgery to repair the damage that
he suffered as a result of the assault. Dr. Russell opined that Webb’s injuries
constituted serious bodily injury, and that the object used to injure Webb was a
deadly weapon.
On May 10, 2018, Webb contacted APD Detective Roger Romero to report
that he was a victim of an aggravated assault that had occurred on or about April 20.
Webb told Detective Romero that he was in his bedroom when he was struck several
times, causing him to lose consciousness. Webb told Detective Romero that he did
not see who struck him, but he believed it was Appellant because they had been
arguing, and Appellant was the only other person in the apartment at the time he was
struck. Webb also told Detective Romero that a necklace, watch, and $100 in cash
4
had been stolen from his apartment after he was assaulted. The next day, Detective
Romero went to Webb’s apartment to take photographs of the scene and locate
evidence of the assault. Detective Romero recovered bloodied bedding and
pillowcases from Webb’s bedroom, and he photographed blood spatters that were
present on the walls and ceiling of Webb’s bedroom.
On May 17, 2018, Detective Romero interviewed Appellant at the Taylor
County jail. During the interview, Appellant denied knowing Sims or Webb, and
denied being at Webb’s apartment on April 20. Detective Romero did not observe
any injuries on Appellant. Detective Romero collected a buccal DNA swab from
Appellant and retrieved Appellant’s property, including his clothes, from the county
jail’s inventory. In doing so, he observed that Appellant’s clothes appeared to be the
same clothes that he was wearing as shown in Officer Broyles’s April 20 body
camera footage. Additionally, Detective Romero testified that Webb’s missing
watch, necklace, and pill bottle were included in Appellant’s jail property; however,
the $100 that Webb reported missing was not there. Detective Romero submitted
blood samples from Webb’s pillowcases, Appellant’s clothes, and the buccal swabs
from Webb and Appellant to the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime
Laboratory for forensic testing and DNA comparison. The test results noted in the
DNA lab report showed that Webb was most likely the contributor of the blood on
Appellant’s jeans and shirt.2
Detective Romero testified that the statements Webb made to him on
May 10—that Appellant had assaulted Webb in Webb’s apartment bedroom—was
consistent with the evidence that he had collected during the investigation. Detective
Romero also obtained a recorded jail telephone call from Appellant to another

2
The lab report showed that it was “134 septillion times more likely” that the blood on Appellant’s
jeans came from Webb, rather than an unknown individual, and “78.3 septillion times more likely” that the
DNA on Appellant’s shirt came from Webb, rather than an unknown individual.
5
person, dated April 17, 2023, where Appellant can be heard saying that “if [Webb]
shows up I’m f----d.”
Sims testified that he met Appellant on Grindr, an online dating app, several
months prior to April 20, but had only spent time with Appellant in person once or
twice. On April 19, Appellant invited Sims to Webb’s apartment. When Sims
arrived at Webb’s apartment, “[i]t was still daylight.”
Sims testified that Appellant let him into Webb’s apartment; Sims “was high
when [he] got there.” Sims noticed that Webb had significant injuries on his face
and was bleeding from his lip. According to Sims, Webb looked “like he was scared
of [Appellant].” Sims also testified that Appellant “had blood on his clothes when
[Sims] got there,” but it appeared that Webb had just showered because his hair was
wet. Sims, who admitted that he was “pretty intoxicated or under the influence of
narcotics that night,” stated that all three of them used drugs at Webb’s apartment—
Sims used methamphetamine and marihuana, Appellant used methamphetamine,
and Webb was “smoking dope.” When Sims asked Appellant where the “blood all
over him” came from, Appellant told Sims that Webb was jumped by two Black men
“at some check cashing place.” Appellant told Sims that he “jumped in to help
[Webb]” and that the blood stains on his shirt were from “the dudes that he almost
beat to death that had attacked [Webb].”3 Sims confirmed that Appellant called
Webb’s mother while they were at the apartment, and stated that, at some point,
Appellant and Webb went into Webb’s bedroom for approximately thirty minutes.
After Officer Broyles told Sims and Appellant to leave, they began walking
along a nearby road. While they were walking, Appellant—unprovoked—struck

Sims also testified that he previously stated under oath that Webb told him “he went to a check
3

cashing place or something and two [B]lack guys jumped him, and I guess [Webb] called [Appellant] to
come over there and help him.” At trial, Sims clarified that Webb made this statement when Webb repeated
the same story that Appellant had told to Sims.
6
Sims several times on the head with a collapsible baton that he had in his jeans
pocket. After the attack, Appellant threw the collapsible baton into a field. Sims
recalled Officer Young and Officer Broyles arriving and arresting Appellant; Sims
then went to the hospital to get stitches for his injuries.
Webb testified that he first communicated with Appellant around mid-
afternoon on April 19 through Grindr. The two arranged to meet, and ultimately
went back to Webb’s apartment. Webb, who was “coming down” from using drugs
earlier in the day, left his apartment to get cocaine and Xanax for Appellant. After
retrieving the drugs for Appellant, Webb returned, and Appellant began “snort[ing]
the cocaine” in Webb’s bedroom while it was still daylight.
Appellant began getting “aggressive” because “[he] wanted more drugs” and
wanted to invite another person to Webb’s apartment. Webb “remember[ed]
[Appellant] getting upset with [him] because [Appellant] didn’t get what he
expected.” The “last thing [Webb] remember[ed]” before losing consciousness was
sitting on his bed while Appellant was sitting on the floor, leaning against the wall,
three feet away.
Webb regained consciousness in his bedroom several hours later when it was
dark outside, approximately thirty minutes before Officer Broyles arrived. Webb
testified that he was “in a lot of pain,” had a bag of frozen peas on his face, was
bleeding from his eye and nose, and noticed blood on his pillow. Webb remembered
seeing blood in various places around the bedroom and that Appellant was the only
other person in his apartment just before he lost consciousness. Webb believed that
Appellant put the bag of frozen peas on his face “to help with the swelling.”
Webb walked into the living room and saw Appellant on the sofa “snorting
cocaine off [the] coffee table” and Sims painting his fingernails. Webb said that he
did not know how Sims got into his apartment. Webb stated that he and Appellant
were almost out of drugs when he passed out, but there were more drugs in the
7
apartment when he regained consciousness. When Webb asked Appellant what
happened, Appellant told him that two Black men “beat[] [him] up.” Webb,
“disoriented and confused,” repeated Appellant’s version of events to Officer
Broyles when he arrived thirty minutes later; Webb regained his memory a few days
after the assault.
Webb’s parents photographed his injuries on April 20, which show Webb
bleeding from his eye. Webb testified that his nose, septum, and jaw were broken,
and his “eye . . . was crushed” as a result of the assault. Webb did not know why he
told Dr. Russell that ten people had beaten him because, at the time, he had no
memory of what had occurred that night. Webb testified that he was missing a silver
necklace and a watch after he was assaulted, and that these items were later
recovered from Appellant’s property at the Taylor County jail.
Webb testified that he later discovered that he was missing $100 from his
wallet. Webb explained that he waited until May 10 to contact law enforcement
because he was worried about getting in trouble for his drug use. However, Webb’s
parents encouraged him to contact law enforcement after seeing the extent of his
injuries and speaking to the doctors who were treating Webb. Webb stated that he
and a friend’s housekeeper cleaned his bedroom and collected his bloodied sheets
prior to Detective Romero’s arrival at the apartment. According to Webb, Appellant
came to Webb’s house prior to trial to ask whether Webb was HIV positive because
Appellant had “busted [his] knuckles” from “beat[ing Webb’s] a-s” and had Webb’s
blood on his hands.
II. Standard of Review
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, regardless of
whether it is framed as a legal or factual sufficiency challenge, under the standard of
review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). See Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–
8
89 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, we review
all 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 charged offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Garcia v. State, 667 S.W.3d
756, 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).
When conducting a sufficiency review, we consider all the evidence admitted
at trial, including evidence that may have been improperly admitted. Winfrey v.
State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Lee v. State, 676 S.W.3d 912,
915 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023, no pet.). We defer to the factfinder’s role as the
sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight their testimony is to be
afforded. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.13 (West 2007); Garcia, 667
S.W.3d at 762 (“[A] reviewing court does not sit as a thirteenth juror and may not
substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder by reevaluating the weight and
credibility of the evidence.”). “This familiar standard gives full play 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.”
Garcia, 667 S.W.3d at 761 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). Therefore, if the
record supports conflicting inferences, we presume the factfinder resolved the
conflicts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that determination. Jackson, 443
U.S. at 326; Garcia, 667 S.W.3d at 762.
We treat direct and circumstantial evidence equally under this standard.
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ruiz v. State, 631
S.W.3d 841, 851 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, pet. ref’d). It is not necessary that the
evidence directly prove 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 the defendant’s guilt. Carrizales v. State, 414
S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
9
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007)); Lee, 676 S.W.3d at 915. 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, we may not 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). Rather, we must consider the cumulative force of all
the evidence. Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
Finally, we measure the sufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the
charged offense as defined by the hypothetically correct charge for the case.
Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); see also Malik v. State,
953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In this regard, to determine whether
the State has met its burden to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
under the Jackson standard, we compare the elements of the offense to the evidence
adduced at trial. Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing
Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240). The hypothetically correct charge “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.”
Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240.
III. Analysis
In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that there is legally insufficient
evidence to support his conviction for aggravated assault. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that the evidence presented at trial was “too speculative” to support the jury’s
determination that Appellant assaulted Webb.
As relevant to this appeal, a person commits the offense of aggravated assault
if he “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes ‘serious’ bodily injury to
another.” PENAL §§ 22.01(a)(1), 22.02(a)(1); Wade v. State, 663 S.W.3d 175, 183
10
(Tex. Crim. App. 2022). Here, Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the jury’s finding that Webb’s injuries constituted “serious
bodily injury.”4 See PENAL § 1.07(46). Rather, Appellant argues that the evidence
was “too muddled” for the jury to have rationally concluded that Appellant was
guilty of aggravated assault because: (1) Sims’s and Webb’s accounts “substantially
contradict[ed]” each other; and (2) Webb’s testimony of the assault—including
Webb’s statements that he remembered Appellant assaulting him—“materially and
fatally contradict[ed] itself.”
“Intent and knowledge are fact questions for the jury, and are almost always
proven through evidence of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” Manrique v.
State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Meyers, J., concurring); Luna v.
State, 687 S.W.3d 79, 93 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, pet. ref’d). A jury may infer
intent and knowledge from any facts that tend to prove its existence, “including the
acts, words, and conduct of the accused,” the method the defendant uses to commit
the offense, and “the nature of wounds inflicted on the victims.” Hart v. State, 89
S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting Manrique, 994 S.W.2d at 649).
Further, a perpetrator’s identity may be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence, or by reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.
Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Based on our
review of the record, we conclude that a rational jury could have logically inferred
and found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly caused serious bodily injury to Webb.

4
Nevertheless, had Appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence as to whether Webb’s injuries
constituted “serious bodily injury,” we would conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to
support the jury’s determination. See Wade, 663 S.W.3d at 188; Goodman v. State, 710 S.W.2d 169, 170
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (“Were it necessary to so hold, we would hold that a skull
fracture in and of itself is a serious bodily injury.”).
11
Webb testified about the facts and circumstances of his assault. On April 19,
he contacted Appellant through an online dating website, the two met, and they went
back to Webb’s apartment. After Appellant indicated that he wanted to use drugs,
Webb left to purchase drugs while Appellant stayed inside the apartment. Webb
then returned to his apartment with drugs, locked the door, and Appellant used the
drugs that Webb had purchased. While they were in Webb’s bedroom, Appellant
became aggressive because he wanted more drugs and wanted to invite Sims to come
to the apartment. Webb testified that “the last thing [he] remember[ed]” before he
lost consciousness was Appellant holding a syringe. Later at trial, Webb testified
that he remembered seeing Appellant strike him before he lost consciousness, but he
stated that he did not know what Appellant had used to strike him. Webb woke up
in his bedroom with injuries to his face. Appellant was the only person in Webb’s
bedroom when he lost consciousness. Webb stated that the drugs were almost gone
when he passed out, but once he awoke, he saw that Sims was in his living room and
there were more drugs in the apartment.
Additionally, Webb explained his conflicting statements to Officer Broyles,
Dr. Russell, and Detective Romero. First, Webb admitted that he told Officer
Broyles that he was attacked by unknown individuals; however, Webb testified that
he made this statement to Officer Broyles because that is what Appellant told him
had occurred when he regained consciousness. Second, Webb testified that he did
not remember telling Dr. Russell that he lost consciousness and woke up with ten
unknown people in his home after walking his dog—although Webb also stated that
he “[did not] know if [his statement to Dr. Russell] was true or not.” According to
Webb, he did not regain his memory of the assault until a few days after the assault
had occurred. Finally, when asked about the general circumstances of his assault
and what he reported to Detective Romero on May 10, Webb maintained that he was
alone in the bedroom of his apartment with Appellant when he was assaulted.
12
Detective Romero observed stains in Webb’s bedroom that he believed were
blood and collected the stained pillowcases from Web’s bedroom for forensic
testing. Detective Romero also collected the clothes that Appellant was wearing on
April 20, a buccal swab from Appellant, and blood samples from Appellant’s shirt,
pants, and Webb’s pillowcase. Forensic testing revealed that there was a strong
likelihood that the bloodstains on Appellant’s shirt and pants came from Webb.
Further, the photographs taken by Detective Romero depicted the blood stains on
Webb’s bedroom walls, bedsheets, and Appellant’s clothing.
Detective Romero testified that he believed Webb was assaulted by Appellant
in the bedroom based on Appellant being the only individual in Webb’s apartment
at the time of the assault, and the presence of Webb’s blood on Appellant’s clothes.
In light of the evidence presented at trial, and any reasonable inferences to be derived
from the evidence, the jury, as a rational trier of fact, could have logically inferred
and found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed aggravated assault
against Webb. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19; see also Ingerson, 559 S.W.3d at
509; Bin Fang v. State, 544 S.W.3d 923, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2018, no pet.) (“A rational jury could infer that appellant acted knowingly because
a person would be aware that beating someone with a fist is reasonably certain to
cause bodily injury.”).
Appellant’s statements further support the jury’s finding of guilt. Webb
testified that Appellant admitted to assaulting him when Appellant stated that he
needed to know if Webb was HIV positive because he “busted [his] knuckles” and
“had [Webb’s] blood on his hands” from “beat[ing Webb’s] a-s.” In a recorded
telephone call from the Taylor County Jail on April 17, 2023, Appellant told
someone during the call that, if Webb shows up to trial, “I’m f----d” and going to
prison. Appellant’s recorded statements on the jail call thus indicate a consciousness
of guilt from which a rational jury could have also determined Appellant’s
13
culpability. See Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no
pet.) (“[A]ny conduct on the part of a person accused of a crime subsequent to its
commission, which indicates a ‘consciousness of guilt’ may be received as a
circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged.”).
Finally, Officer Broyles, Detective Romero, Sims, and Webb each testified
about the various statements that Appellant made concerning Webb’s assault.
Appellant told Officer Broyles that he was not present when Webb was assaulted,
and that he was only at the apartment to check on Webb after Webb told him that he
was attacked by “some guys . . . from upstairs.” After Officer Broyles noticed blood
stains on Appellant’s clothing, Appellant told Officer Broyles that Webb went to the
“wrong hookup” to purchase drugs and got “jack[ed].” Also, Appellant could not
recall Webb’s name when he was speaking to Officer Broyles. When Appellant was
interviewed by Detective Romero at the jail, Appellant denied knowing Webb or
Sims, and denied being at Webb’s apartment on April 20. Officer Broyles’s body
camera footage and the video recording of Detective Romero’s interview with
Appellant corroborate their testimony. Further, Sims and Webb testified that
Appellant told them that Webb was injured when he was attacked by two Black
males; Sims also testified that Appellant said Webb was attacked at a check cashing
business.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that the evidence was too contradictory
and inconsistent to be credible, it is well-settled that the jury may believe all, some,
or none of any witness’s testimony. Adelman v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992); Reyes v. State, 465 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015,
pet. ref’d) (citing Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)); see
Winfrey, 393 S.W.3d at 768; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. As the trier of fact, it is
the jury’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to
draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jackson, 443 U.S.
14
at 326; Winfrey, 393 S.W.3d at 768; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Clayton, 235
S.W.3d at 778. Therefore, when the evidence supports conflicting inferences, we
presume that the jury, as the factfinder, resolved any conflicts in favor of the verdict,
and we defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Merritt v. State, 368
S.W.3d 516, 525–26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778.
We have reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdict, as we must, and we conclude that the record before us contains sufficient
evidence from which a rational jury could have logically inferred and found beyond
a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of aggravated assault, as charged in
Count Two of the indictment. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue on
appeal.
IV. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

January 9, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

15