Opinion
No. 04-15-00278-CR
02-17-2016
Sidney R. DENBINA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CR8319
Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice AFFIRMED
Sidney R. Denbina was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, Denbina contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's implicit rejection of his claim that he acted in self-defense. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Denbina and Uvaldo Siller were neighbors who lived across from each other. Siller testified that on the night of April 30, 2014, he exited his truck after returning home from church and immediately felt "an impact" in his lower back. He further testified that he fell to the ground after the impact in his back and realized he was being shot at by Denbina. Siller sustained two gunshot wounds to his left arm, one to his left shoulder blade, and one to his lower back. Siller's next door neighbor, Angela Bruce, testified that she saw the flash from the gunshot coming from where Denbina had been standing in front of his house and that she heard four gunshots before going inside. Siller's other next door neighbors, Rick Hernandez and his son Rene Hernandez, testified that they were inside their home when they heard seven or eight gunshots. They went outside to assist Siller and saw that he had been shot. They each testified that Siller told them the neighbor across the street had shot him. Police officers arrived on scene and found Siller lying on the ground with gunshot wounds. Officers obtained a search warrant and entered Denbina's home, but did not find Denbina inside the home.
Denbina testified that he went over to talk to Siller after he noticed Siller made a key mark on his jeep, and that Siller shot him in the left side of his head with a small handgun, which led Denbina to return fire and shoot Siller. Denbina further testified that he fled the scene because he was afraid of the situation escalating, the reaction of responding law enforcement, and he was concerned about the wound to his head. Denbina was arrested on May 1, 2014 in Fort Worth while on the way to Dallas to see his brother who is an attorney. Denbina did not appear to be injured at the time of his arrest. The jury found Denbina guilty as charged in the indictment and the trial court assessed punishment at 15 years' confinement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
On appeal, Denbina contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's implicit rejection of his claim that he acted in self-defense. A person is justified in using force against another "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a) (West 2011). To prevail on a claim of self-defense with the use of deadly force, a defendant must prove: (1) he would have been justified in using force against the other person under section 9.31(a); and (2) it was reasonable to believe that "deadly force [was] immediately necessary . . . to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force." Id. at § 9.32(a) (West 2011).
Once a defendant produces some evidence raising the issue of self-defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). To meet its burden of persuasion, the State is not required to affirmatively produce evidence. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, it has made an implicit finding against any defensive theory raised by the defendant. Id. at 914; see also Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594.
When a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's implicit rejection of his self-defense claim, "we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant's self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of [the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt." Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914; see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). In conducting a legal sufficiency review, we defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
DISCUSSION
Denbina was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). The jury was instructed to find Denbina guilty if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that he "did use or exhibit a deadly weapon, namely: a firearm, and [he] did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Uvaldo Siller by shooting Uvaldo Siller with said deadly weapon." The charge also instructed the jury to find Denbina not guilty if it found he acted in self-defense. Self-defense was defined in accordance with the law. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 9.31-.32 (West 2011). It is undisputed that Denbina intentionally caused bodily injury to Siller when he shot him with a firearm, which constitutes a deadly weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(17)(A) (West Supp. 2015). The evidence establishes every essential element of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. Thus, we must next determine whether the jury "also would have found against [Denbina] on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
Here, the record contains Siller's testimony that upon arriving home from church, he parked his truck in his driveway and immediately after exiting his truck, Denbina shot him. Siller had gunshot wounds to his left arm, shoulder, and lower back. Angela Bruce, Siller's neighbor, testified that she saw Siller pulling into his driveway and almost immediately she saw a gunshot flash come from where Denbina had been standing across the street. Bruce testified that she did not hear Siller or Denbina yell anything prior to the shooting. Siller's other neighbors, Mr. Hernandez and his son, testified that after hearing several gunshots, they went outside and found Siller in front of his house with gunshot wounds where it appeared he had just gotten out of his truck. They further testified Siller told them the neighbor across the street had shot him and pointed in the direction of Denbina's home. Denbina asserts he shot Siller in self-defense because Siller first shot him in the left side of the head. He further asserts he fled the scene for fear of the reaction of law enforcement and concern over his head wound.
The only evidence offered to raise the issue of self-defense was Denbina's own testimony that he was shot first by Siller, which could have been disbelieved by the jury. There is no evidence that Siller possessed a firearm on the night of the shooting. A firearm was not found on or around Siller and no shell casings from any other firearms were found at the scene. Moreover, the record contains no evidence to support Denbina's claim that he was shot in the head. Denbina did not have any blood on his clothing, there were no medical records indicating he had a gunshot wound to the head, and there was no evident wound to his head upon his arrest the day after the shooting. In our review, we defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and the jury in this case could have disbelieved Denbina's testimony that Siller shot him first. Furthermore, the jury was entitled to consider Denbina's actions in fleeing the scene after the shooting. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (stating "factfinder may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstance of flight"); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd) (acknowledging flight from scene as evidence jury could consider in rejecting self-defense claim).
Having reviewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude the jury rationally could have found each element of the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and also rationally could have rejected Denbina's self-defense claim. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, we overrule Denbina's sole issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Do not publish