In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-25-00160-CR
LOUIS JERNELLL MATHIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1837945
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louis Jernelll Mathis was convicted of third-degree felony assault family violence, with a
prior conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A). Mathis was sentenced to
twenty-five years’ confinement in prison. On appeal, Mathis argues that the evidence was
legally insufficient to support his conviction.1 Finding that the evidence was sufficient to
support his conviction, we overrule Mathis’s sole point of error and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
I. Background
Mathis was homeless, and Cassie Bunch allowed him to stay at her residence. Within
two months of Mathis staying at Bunch’s residence, Mathis assaulted Bunch by repeatedly
choking her. Mathis was charged with assaulting a family member with a prior family-violence
conviction and pled not guilty.
At trial, Bunch testified that between August 9 and 10, 2024, Mathis repeatedly (1) hit
her while Mathis was driving her vehicle, (2) hit and choked her while in a rideshare vehicle, and
(3) hit her face while in her residence. The State entered photographs of the injuries Bunch
sustained without objection, which included black eyes, bruises, a busted lip, and a swollen face.
Bunch testified that Mathis sent her a text message apologizing after she complained of the
injuries to her face. Bunch’s grandmother testified that Bunch’s face was swollen and Bunch
had black eyes following the assault. Bunch’s oldest daughter testified that Bunch was out with
1
Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding the issues presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
Mathis when Bunch sustained those injuries. Bunch’s son called 9-1-1 stating that Mathis had
punched Bunch. Bunch’s grandmother also called 9-1-1 stating that Bunch had been assaulted.
Both recorded 9-1-1 calls were entered into evidence without objection. On August 10, 2024,
Eduardo Cuellar, an officer with the Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD), responded to a
domestic-violence dispute. Cuellar testified to witnessing Bunch’s injuries and the rideshare
receipt from the night before, as well as calling for medical assistance. Brady Wyrick, a
domestic-violence investigator with the FWPD, testified that he attempted to call Mathis, who
later returned his telephone call. Wyrick testified that all telephone interviews are recorded.
During Wyrick’s telephone call with Mathis, Mathis admitted to having an argument with Bunch
on August 10 and stated that he no longer lived at her residence. Wyrick’s recorded telephone
call with Mathis was also entered into evidence.
The jury returned a guilty verdict.2 Mathis was sentenced to twenty-five years’
confinement in prison.3 Mathis appeals.
II. Legal Sufficiency
Mathis argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed the
offense of assault with bodily injury to Bunch by striking her with his hand.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
“In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential
2
The State also charged Mathis with assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found him not guilty of that offense. 3
Mathis pled true to the State’s enhancement paragraph for being a habitual offender, pursuant to the punishment range provided for under the repeat and habitual offender statute, which increased the length of his prison sentence to a minimum of twenty-five years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (Supp.).
3
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010)). “Our rigorous review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.” Id.
(citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917–18 (Cochran, J., concurring)). “We examine legal sufficiency
under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury
‘to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences
from basic facts to ultimate facts.”’ Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007)).
The jury, as “the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
their testimony[, could] ‘believe all of [the] witnesses’ testimony, portions of it, or none of it.’”
Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 10 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014)). “We give ‘almost complete deference to a jury’s decision when that decision is based
upon an evaluation of credibility.’” Id. (quoting Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008)).
B. Analysis
In his sole argument, Mathis provides quotes from his own direct examination along with
a citation to a portion of the trial transcript. Mathis appears to suggest that his own direct
examination is conclusive in establishing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his
conviction. Mathis does not discuss the elements of the offense, nor does he explain how the
State’s evidence was insufficient to support the elements of his offense. Mathis’s failure to do so
is a deficiency in his argument. See Stevens v. State, Nos. 02-10-00139-CR, 02-10-00140-CR &
4
02-10-00141-CR, 2011 WL 5119572, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2011, no pet.)
(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Even so, we find ample evidence supporting the “sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). The State provided
testimony from Bunch, her family, a responding officer, and provided photographic and recorded
evidence. Direct and corroborating evidence can establish the elements of the charged offense.
See Coleman v. State, 631 S.W.3d 744, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. ref’d).
The jury was within its power as fact-finder to weigh the evidence, “reconcile any conflicts in
the evidence,” and return a conviction. See Gonzalez v. State, No. 02-14-00229-CR, 2015 WL
9244986, at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 17, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (citing Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)); TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 36.13, 38.04. Because the jury had sufficient basis to find Mathis guilty
of the offense, we determine that the evidence was legally sufficient and “the reviewing court is
required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations.” See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at
889 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).
We overrule Mathis’s sole issue.
5
III. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: June 24, 2026
Date Decided: August 17, 2026
Do Not Publish
6