Rivera v. State, 111219 NVCA, 76731-COA
|Opinion Judge:||GIBBONS, C.J.|
|Party Name:||ANTHONY ANGEL RIVERA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Tao, Bulla, J. Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge|
|Case Date:||November 12, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Anthony Angel Rivera appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict of assault with a deadly weapon and battery by strangulation. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge.
Sufficiency of the evidence
Rivera claims insufficient evidence supports his convictions because the State failed to prove that his battery of victim Martin Avalos-Pineda resulted in substantial bodily harm and he placed victim Paola Itzel-Valdez in apprehension of immediate bodily harm while holding a pneumatic rifle. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
The jury heard testimony that Rivera went to Avalos-Pineda's automobile shop and became angry when he learned his limousine had not been repaired. He went into Avalos-Pineda's office, struck Avalos-Pineda in the head, and put his arm around Avalos-Pineda's neck. Avalos-Pineda could not breathe, he had trouble seeing, and he passed out. Rivera took the pneumatic rifle Avalos-Pineda kept in his office.
Itzel-Valdez saw Rivera go into Avalos-Pineda's automobile shop and went into the shop shortly afterwards. She saw Rivera striking Avalos-Pineda with one hand and holding his neck with the other hand. She believed Avalos-Pineda was injured because he was bleeding from his eyes. And she asked what was going on. Rivera stopped hitting Avalos-Pineda, grabbed the pneumatic rifle, and exited Avalos-Pineda's office. He held the rifle with the muzzle pointed toward the ceiling and told Itzel-Valdez that "Nothing happened here. You didn't see anything." Itzel-Valdez felt she had been threatened.
We conclude a rational juror could reasonably conclude from this evidence that Rivera impeded Avalos-Pineda's breathing in a manner that created a risk of death...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP