Charles Gugliotta v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » Charles Gugliotta v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-03-00133-CR

Case Date: 12/08/2004

Plaintiff: Anthony Wayne Tyson

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court 4 of Dallas County of Dallas County

Preview:Charles Gugliotta v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00133-CR Charles Gugliotta, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court # FAM-02-16,357 MEMORANDUM Opinion

The court convicted Charles Gugliotta in a bench trial of aggravated assault and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. Gugliotta contends in two issues that (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the court s finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon and (2) the court erred by rejecting his self-defense claim because the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that he used deadly force. We will affirm. Gugliotta s conviction stems from a barroom fight with Ronnie Shulz, with whom Gugliotta had had at least one prior altercation. As Shulz was leaving the bar, words were exchanged. Gugliotta hit Shulz in the head with a beer bottle because he believed Shulz was going to assault him. The bottle broke upon impact, and Shulz fell to the ground, bleeding from where the bottle hit him. Both of Gugliotta s issues hinge on whether his use of a glass bottle to hit Shulz in the head constitutes the use of a deadly weapon. Several courts have upheld findings that a bottle used in this manner is a deadly weapon. See Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Enriquez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 191, 192-93 (Tex. App. El Paso 1992, no pet.); Compton v. State, 759 S.W.2d 503, 503-04 (Tex. App. Dallas 1988, no pet.). The fact that the State did not call a witness to testify that the bottle was a deadly weapon is irrelevant. Cf. Hayes, 728 S.W.2d at 808 ( The complainant s own testimony reveals that he struck appellant with the Coke bottle, clearly an object capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. ). Expert testimony is not required. English v. State, 647 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Bailey v. State, 46 S.W.3d 487, 491-92 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref d); Charleston v. State, 33 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2000, pet. ref d). Rather, each case must be
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6180.html[8/20/2013 7:20:12 PM]

examined on its own facts and circumstances. Id. After viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gugliotta used the beer bottle in a manner which was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Jackson v. Va., 443 U.S.307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 753-54 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003). Accordingly, we overrule Gugliotta s issues.

We affirm the judgment. FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 8, 2004 Do not publish [CR25]

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6180.html[8/20/2013 7:20:12 PM]

Download 6180.pdf