Raymond Garcia v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 04-08-00897-CR

Case Date: 12/02/2009

Plaintiff: Raymond Garcia

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Preview:i

i

i

i

i

i

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00897-CR Raymond T. GARCIA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007CR3140 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 2, 2009 AFFIRMED Raymond T. Garcia was convicted of driving while intoxicated. On appeal, Garcia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and contends the trial court erred in overruling his objections to improper jury argument. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

04-08-00897-CR

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In order for evidence to be legally sufficient, it must "convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979). We review the legal sufficiency 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. Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses, the jury may choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony or evidence presented. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In conducting a factual sufficiency review, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light and set aside the verdict only if: (1) the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust; or (2) the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge "the appellate court should be mindful that a jury has already passed on the facts, and convicted, and that the court should never order a new trial simply because it disagrees with the verdict, but only where it seems to the court to represent a manifest injustice." Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The only element of the driving while intoxicated offense that Garcia challenges is the jury's finding that he was intoxicated. See TEX . PEN . CODE ANN .

Download 22590.pdf