Reyes Castro Quintanilla v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-99-00798-CR

Reyes Castro QUINTANILLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 98CR3651

Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2000

AFFIRMED

Reyes Castro Quintanilla (AQuintanilla@) appeals her conviction of assault on a public servant (bodily injury). Quintanilla waived her right to a trial by jury and was found guilty by the trial court. In two points of error, Quintanilla complains that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the guilty verdict. We overrule Quintanilla=s points of error and affirm the trial court=s judgment.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 19 (1979). In a factual sufficiency review, we must view all the evidence without the prism of Ain the light most favorable to the prosecution@ and set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App.1996). A factual sufficiency review must be appropriately deferential. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim. App.1996). The appellate court=s evaluation cannot substantially intrude upon the role of the trier of fact as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony. See id. A determination that the evidence is factually insufficient is proper only when the verdict is Amanifestly unjust,@ Ashocks the conscience,@ or Aclearly demonstrates bias.@ Id.

In her two points of error, Quintanilla contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to identify her as the person who committed the offense. Officer Jeffrey Schneider was called to the emergency center of the hospital where he worked in response to a public disturbance. When Officer Schneider arrived, he observed Cecilia Villarreal restraining her brother, Julio Cesar Villarreal, and attempting to convince him to return inside to see a doctor. Raymundo Villarreal, another brother of Cecilia=s, and Quintanilla, Cecilia=s aunt, were also present. As Officer Schneider was attempting to calm everyone down, Julio Cesar hit him. When Officer Schneider pushed Julio Cesar back, Raymundo hit him, and a fight ensued. Officer Schneider, Officer Albino Ramirez, Officer Lisa Marie Reid, and a security officer (Martha Saldivar) all testified that Quintanilla was hitting and kicking Officer Schneider. Officer David De La Vega testified that Quintanilla was interfering with the officers when he arrived, but he could not recall whether Quintanilla was kicking or hitting Officer Schneider. Officer De La Vega stated that his recollection was vague as to the females, because his concern was dealing with the male suspects. Both Cecilia and Quintanilla testified that they did not hit or kick Officer Schneider or Officer Ramirez.

The testimony of Officer Schneider, Officer Ramirez, Officer Reid, and Saldivar is legally and factually sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The trial court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and, apparently, disbelieved the testimony of Cecilia and Quintanilla. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 647. Quintanilla=s points of error are overruled, and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH