TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00085-CR
Fay Eugene Cantwell, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. FR83631, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Fay Eugene Cantwell challenges his conviction for the first-degree
offense of aggravated assault against a family or household member with a deadly weapon. See
Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a), (b)(1)(A). In two issues, he contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support his conviction. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
Police officers and paramedics responded to an emergency in a hotel parking lot.
Video footage from Officer Edwin Guzman, Jr.’s bodycam was admitted into evidence at trial. It
shows that they found a woman on the ground in the parking lot. She was identified from her
driver’s license as Shawnette Jimenez. She stated that she fell out of a vehicle and then was run
over by a vehicle going twenty-five miles per hour. Officer Guzman found out from the hotel manager that she and her boyfriend, Cantwell, lived together at the hotel. The manager showed
the responding officers a recording from the parking lot surveillance camera.
The surveillance video from the hotel parking lot was admitted into evidence. It
shows that Jimenez walked across the hotel parking lot. A white truck drove through the parking
lot on the opposite side of the parking lot but going in the same direction as Jimenez. As both
the truck and Jimenez reached the far side of the parking lot, the truck turned a corner and drove
toward Jimenez. The truck struck her with its front-passenger-side panel. She fell to the ground,
and the truck’s back tire ran over her. The truck visibly bounced up and down as it ran over her.
The truck was driven out of frame without stopping. Three people who were at the building next
door ran to Jimenez and stayed with her until EMS and police arrived.
According to the bodycam footage, the hotel manager told Officer Guzman that
the white truck belonged to Cantwell’s employer and that the couple fought a lot. The manager
also mentioned that Cantwell had not picked up his room key that day. Based on the information
provided by the manager, officers began efforts to locate Cantwell. The hotel manager called
Cantwell’s boss to tell him that his truck had been involved in a car accident and that the police
were looking for Cantwell. That same night, Cantwell called Officer Guzman and agreed to
meet him at the police station to give a statement. Cantwell spoke with Officer Guzman at the
station and then did an interview with Sergeant Tom Wolff.
Video of Cantwell’s interview with Sergeant Wolff was admitted into evidence.
Cantwell told the sergeant that he was at the hotel in his truck with Jimenez when she punched
him in the jaw. He stated that he made her get out of the truck. He told Sergeant Wolff that she
was walking towards their hotel room where they lived together. He stated that she was carrying
a beer bottle and that they both had been drinking. Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that he thought
2
Jimenez was going to lock him out of the room and destroy his belongings. He stated that he
drove over to the room and came to a complete stop as she was approaching his truck. He stated
that while the truck was fully stopped, she threw her body against his truck and hit the truck with
the beer bottle. He stated that she then threw herself to the ground and “played dead.” He stated
that he slowly backed the truck up and drove around her. He stated that he saw her get up, so he
drove away. He stated that he was planning to come back once she had time to cool off.
Cantwell told the sergeant that his boss called him and told him that Jimenez was in the hospital
and that he needed to contact the police. Cantwell signed a statement reflecting his side of the
story, summarized above, which was admitted into evidence.
Sergeant Wolff then showed Cantwell the hotel video footage. Cantwell initially
insisted that the video supports his story. He stated that it shows his vehicle “slow” and “brake”
and “not even hit her, she walked into it.” When Sergeant Wolff pointed out that the truck never
stopped, Cantwell replied that he “was going to pull in and stop.” When Sergeant Wolff pointed
out that his back tire ran over a “huge bump,” Cantwell responded that he did not feel a bump at
the time and insisted that he did not run her over and that she just walked into his truck. He
explained that he could not feel anything in the truck because it is a large truck. However, he
also stated that he felt it when she hit the truck with the beer bottle.
After Sergeant Wolff pointed out that the video footage shows his truck running
over Jimenez, Cantwell admitted that it “does look bad,” but blamed the angle of the camera for
not showing that the truck slowed down. He also blamed Jimenez and claimed that she did this
on purpose to make him look bad and get him in trouble. Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that
Jimenez has done things like this before and that “she runs into [his] truck all the time.” He told
the sergeant, “If I had wanted to run her over, I would have killed that bitch.” Throughout the
3
interview Cantwell called Jimenez multiple disparaging names, including “crazy,” “mental,”
“drama queen,” “bitch,” “dumbass,” and “idiot.” At one point he apologized to Sergeant Wolff
for calling Jimenez “a bitch” but explained that she just made him so mad. Approximately seven
minutes after being shown the video of Jimenez being run over by his truck, he stated that he
hoped she was all right. He then continued calling her names and insisting that “she walked into
[his] truck.”
Officer Guzman, Sergeant Wolff, and the hotel manager testified at trial.
Tempress Heller, one of the three people who ran to Jimenez’s aid after she was
hit by the truck, also testified. She testified that she was working as a caregiver for an elderly
client when her boyfriend got her attention and told her that a woman had been hit by a truck in
the parking lot next door. She ran to the woman and applied pressure to her stomach. She
testified that Jimenez told her that it felt like her stomach was going to fall out of her. Heller
testified that she saw a bone sticking out through Jimenez’s pants.
Jimenez testified that she and Cantwell have a child together. She testified that
they were not living together at the time of trial but were still together. She testified that she
loved him and that he was her life partner. She stated that he was financially supporting her and
their child.
Jimenez testified about their living situation at the time of the incident. She
explained that she and Cantwell had been evicted from their home and were living in the hotel.
She testified that Cantwell’s boss had arranged for them to live there in exchange for their doing
pest control services for the hotel, which is what Cantwell did for work at that time. She agreed
that if it was not for Cantwell, she would have been homeless.
4
Jimenez testified that she did not have a key to the hotel room the night of the
incident. She explained that the hotel management required Cantwell to go to the office to get a
new key made each day and that she was not allowed in the hotel office. She testified that
Cantwell had gotten out of the truck to go get a key made and that she got out and started
walking across the parking lot. On cross examination, she testified that she had punched him
while in the truck.
Jimenez testified about being hit by Cantwell’s truck. She testified that she had
been drinking that day and stepped in front of the truck as a way of testing if he loved her and for
attention. She explained that she had done similar things like this in the past, which she said
were caused by her drinking and mental health issues. She testified that she was not taking her
mental-health medication at the time of the incident. She testified that the truck was going very
slowly when it hit her and ran her over. She testified that after the truck ran her over, she stood
up, shouted Cantwell’s name, and then fell. The hotel video was played for her, and she was
asked if she had misremembered that she stood up after being hit. She replied that she could not
see the video clearly but that she “was wondering when [she] was going to stand up also.” She
testified that she did not think Cantwell saw her but also testified that she made eye contact with
him and saw him mouth, “no,” when the truck struck her and knocked her down. She explained
that the “no” was him warning her not to step in front of the truck and that she did not think he
knew he ran over her. She testified that Sergeant Wolff had talked to her in the hospital and she
told him that Cantwell had not seen her.
Jimenez testified that she had to have two surgeries to repair her injuries from
being run over—a ruptured bladder and a compound fracture to her pelvis. Her medical records
were admitted into evidence. She testified that after the incident, none of her family came to
5
visit her and Cantwell came and took care of her. She testified that they had spoken about the
incident many times.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury found Cantwell guilty of aggravated
assault against a family or household member with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code
§ 22.02(a), (b)(1)(A). The trial court sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. See id.
§ 12.32. Cantwell appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined in a hypothetically correct jury charge, which is “one that accurately sets out the law, is
authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or
unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular
offense for which the defendant was tried.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1997). “When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “This standard requires the appellate court to defer ‘to the
responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). “We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder.” Id. Although factfinders “may not speculate about the meaning of facts
or evidence,” they are permitted to “draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as
6
each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. “We presume that the
factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we
defer to that resolution.” Id. This is because the factfinders are “the exclusive judges of the
facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony.” Id. “Direct
evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone
may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating
circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Id.
DISCUSSION
In his first issue, Cantwell contends that the evidence failed to prove his mental
state at the time of the offense. In his second issue, he contends that the evidence is insufficient
to support a finding that he used the truck as a deadly weapon.
Mental State
As relevant to the charged offense, a person commits aggravated assault if the
person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to another. See Tex.
Penal Code § 22.02(a). “A person acts intentionally . . . with respect to the nature of his conduct
or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct
or cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(a). “A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to
the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the
nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.” Id. § 6.03(b). “A person acts knowingly,
or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is
reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. “A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but
7
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the
result will occur.” Id. § 6.03(c). “The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise
under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.” Id.
Cantwell contends that the only evidence of his mental state is from his
statements made during his police interview and that those establish that he did not intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly cause Jimenez’s injuries. We disagree. Intent may be inferred from
circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and the conduct of the defendant. Guevara v. State,
152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). During the police interview, Cantwell expressed
anger towards Jimenez and told Sergeant Wolff that she had punched him in the face and that he
had reacted by kicking her out of the truck, which according to the video evidence would have
occurred minutes before he ran her over. See Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 526 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012) (explaining that “[a]lthough motive and opportunity are not elements . . . they are
circumstances indicative of guilt.”). After hitting Jimenez with the front corner of his truck and
running her over with a back tire, he drove away without stopping. See Devoe v. State,
354 S.W.3d 457, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noting that inference of guilt may be drawn from
flight); Dobbins v. State, 228 S.W.3d 761, 764–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
dism’d.) (explaining that defendant’s intent can be inferred from defendant’s conduct after
offense was committed).
The jury was free not to believe Cantwell’s explanation that he was unaware that
he ran Jimenez over. See Febus v. State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“A jury
may accept one version of the facts and reject another, and it may reject any part of a witness’s
testimony.”). Further, a defendant’s inconsistent and false statements and implausible
8
explanations made to police “are probative of wrongful conduct and are also circumstances of
guilt.” Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. Cantwell made multiple false, inconsistent, or implausible
statements to the police. He stated that his truck came to a complete stop before Jimenez threw
herself onto his truck and then to the ground and “played dead.” He stated that he backed up and
carefully drove around her. He also stated that he saw her stand up before he drove away.
However, the video and the severity of Jimenez’s injuries directly contradict those statements.
The footage demonstrates that he did not come to a stop before hitting her, and Jimenez told
Officer Guzman that the vehicle that hit her was going twenty-five miles per hour. The video
also contradicts that she stood up at any point after being run over, although it is unclear from the
footage how much she was able to sit up or attempt to get up after being run over by the truck.
Further, after being confronted by the video, Cantwell changed his story to say
that he was going to slow down or park the car before Jimenez ran into his truck. He also
blamed the angle of the video for not showing that he slowed down. Moreover, although
Cantwell told police that he did not feel it when he ran over Jimenez, the video demonstrates that
his truck significantly bounced as he ran her over. Further, Cantwell claimed that he felt it when
the truck initially collided with her, which did not cause the same level of visible disturbance to
the truck.
Additionally, Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that he drove towards Jimenez that
night because he thought she was going to lock him out of their room and destroy his belongings.
However, Jimenez testified that she did not have her own access to the hotel room. She
explained that they had to get a new key for the hotel room each day, that only Cantwell could
get access to the key, and that he had not done so that day. The hotel manager told Officer
Guzman that Cantwell had not picked up the hotel key that day.
9
The jury was free not to believe Cantwell’s given reason for driving toward
Jimenez or his explanation that it was her fault and that he did not know she was injured. See
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that jury is entitled
to judge credibility of the witnesses, and can choose to believe all, some, or none of their
testimony). The jury could have believed that Cantwell’s statements were false, misleading, or
implausible and reasonably inferred that he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessness caused
Jimenez’s injuries. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50–52 (explaining that intent may be inferred
from circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and conduct of defendant and concluding that
evidence was sufficient to support murder conviction based in part on defendant’s false
statements to police); see also Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)
(explaining that “[t]he circumstances of the crime itself are always important in determining the
mental state of the accused at the commission of the offense” and that attempts “to elude officers
can indicate knowledge of wrongful conduct”).
In support of this issue, Cantwell emphasizes Jimenez’s testimony that supported
his defense theory. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Jimenez’s testimony that supported
Cantwell’s defense theory. See Chambers, 805 S.W.2d at 461. They could have reasonably
believed that her statements and explanations were implausible based on her strong financial
dependence on him and the video evidence.
The jury could have reasonably interpreted the collective video evidence to
support a finding that Cantwell aimed for and hit Jimenez with his truck while going
approximately twenty-five miles per hour through a parking lot. Further, the jurors could have
reasonably believed that Cantwell intended to injure Jimenez when he aimed his truck at her
while going that speed and did not stop. See Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549, 556 n.18
10
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“It is both a common-sense inference and an appellate presumption that
a person intends the natural consequences of his acts.”).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that
there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Cantwell possessed the
requisite mental state when he injured Jimenez by hitting her with his truck. The evidence was
also sufficient to establish that she suffered serious bodily injury and was a member of his
household. We overrule his first issue.
Deadly weapon finding
Cantwell contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the deadly-weapon
finding. In support, he asserts that the incident was an accident caused by the victim’s actions
and that there is no evidence that he drove recklessly or intended to use the truck as a weapon.
As discussed above in detail, there is sufficient evidence to support that he intentionally caused
Jimenez bodily injury when he drove his truck into her. Further, for the reasons discussed
below, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support that his truck was intentionally used
as a deadly weapon.
A “deadly weapon” is “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(17)(b). Driving an
automobile in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury is using it as a deadly
weapon. Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “‘Serious bodily injury’
means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious
permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member
or organ.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(46). “In order to sustain a deadly-weapon finding, the
11
evidence must demonstrate that: 1) the object meets the definition of a deadly weapon; 2) the
deadly weapon was used or exhibited during the transaction on which the felony conviction was
based; and 3) other people were put in actual danger.” Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490, 494
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Cantwell relies on the holding in Brister to support his contention that the
evidence was insufficient to support the deadly weapon finding. In Brister, the defendant was
convicted of driving while intoxicated and the jury made an affirmative deadly weapon finding.
Id. at 491. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that Brister
used his car as a deadly weapon when the evidence in support of the third requirement showed
only that he was intoxicated and crossed over into the oncoming traffic lane once but while no
cars were present. Id. at 495. The Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the car was not used
as a deadly weapon because no person other than the defendant was put in actual danger of death
or serious bodily injury by the way he was driving. Id. However, the facts of this case
are distinguishable.
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the deadly-weapon
finding, the manner in which Cantwell drove his car—intentionally in the direction of a
pedestrian crossing through a parking lot—put Jimenez in actual danger. Jimenez was not only
put in actual danger; she was also seriously injured by Cantwell’s actions. See Nguyen v. State,
506 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (concluding that evidence was
sufficient to support deadly-weapon finding when it included evidence that defendant
intentionally used his car in manner that caused actual injuries to victim). Specifically, Jimenez
testified that she suffered a ruptured bladder and a compound fracture to her pelvis, and Heller
testified that she saw a bone sticking out through Jimenez’s pants.
12
We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the deadly-weapon finding
in this case. We overrule Cantwell’s final issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis
Affirmed
Filed: August 11, 2026
Do Not Publish
13