Vincente Navarro v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 203rd District Court of Dallas County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Vicente Navarro

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-01-00272-CR -- Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted Vicente Navarro of the offense of aggravated assault and made an affirmative deadly weapon finding. The trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at confinement for 20 years. We affirm.

Issues Presented

Appellant presents three points of error on appeal. In the first and second points, he challenges the factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he was the person who committed the offense. In his third point, appellant complains of error in the prosecutor=s jury argument.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In order to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must 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 crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000). In order to determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence in support of a vital fact is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the finding of a vital fact is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.Cr.App.2001); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).

The record shows that Saul Horcasitas, the 20-year-old complainant, was shot while driving home one night from a club at which his sister worked. The bullet entered the complainant=s back and paralyzed him for life. Although neither the complainant nor his passengers actually saw the person who fired the shot, they testified that, while they were attempting to leave the club parking lot, a vehicle with at least two unknown people in it was parked behind the complainant=s vehicle and was blocking the way. The complainant described the suspect=s vehicle as a Ablue, pickup SUV@ Chevrolet. After waiting several minutes for the blue vehicle to move, the complainant honked his horn twice. The blue vehicle Apeeled out,@ and the complainant left. Shortly thereafter, the same blue vehicle came from behind them, swerving and driving erratically. As the blue vehicle passed the complainant=s, the shot was fired. The passenger=s side of the blue vehicle was close to the complainant=s side of his vehicle when the incident occurred.

The complainant=s sister, Rosio Horcasitas, testified that appellant had been in the club on the night her brother was shot and that he had given her his phone number. Subsequently, not knowing that Rosio was the complainant=s sister, appellant admitted to Rosio that he had fired one shot Ato the one in the car.@

The State also called Isidoro Najera Cruz, a Ahostile@ witness, to testify. Cruz and appellant were friends and coworkers. Cruz said that he drove a 1981 blue and white Ablazer truck.@ Cruz testified that he was driving the night of the incident and that appellant was with him. Cruz testified that, as they were pulled up beside another car, he heard a shot but that he did not see anything else. Detective Jose Jimenez testified about prior statements that Cruz had made where Cruz told the officer that he was afraid of appellant and terrified that if he told what happened appellant would hurt him or his family. The detective testified that Cruz also told him the following details about the night of the shooting. After an incident involving another vehicle in a parking lot of a club, appellant told Cruz to follow the vehicle. Cruz did. When they pulled up next to the other vehicle, appellant stuck his arm out the window and fired one shot from an unknown object. Appellant was sitting in the passenger=s seat of Cruz=s vehicle.

We hold that the evidence is both factually and legally sufficient to show that appellant was the person who committed the offense. The first and second points of error are overruled.

Jury Argument

In his third point, appellant complains that the prosecutor constantly misstated and characterized the evidence to the jury during his closing argument. Appellant, however, failed to preserve this issue for review. A defendant's failure to object to a jury argument or his failure to pursue his objection to an adverse ruling Aforfeits his right to complain about the argument on appeal.@ Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), cert. den=d, 520 U.S. 1173 (1997). The record shows that appellant made three objections to the prosecutor=s closing argument. The trial court did not overrule any of these objections. Rather, after each objection, the trial court instructed the jury to Arecall the evidence as you recall it.@ Appellant did not pursue his objections to an adverse ruling. Consequently, appellant forfeited his right to complain on appeal. The third point of error is overruled.

This Court=s Ruling

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

June 27, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.