Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00088-CR SENTHIL MANALAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 11 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2061302 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant Senthil Manalan guilty of misdemeanor assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2018). The trial court sentenced appellant to a one-year confinement probated for two years and a $300 fine. Appellant timely appealed and asserts three issues challenging the trial court’s final judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant and complainant are husband and wife, respectively. Appellant and complainant moved from India to the United States in 2013 for appellant’s job. Complainant called 9-1-1 on November 11, 2015, reporting that appellant had hit her repeatedly with a belt at the couple’s apartment. The alleged assault and ensuing events described below are taken from witness testimony from appellant’s January 2017 two-day trial. Complainant testified that appellant hit her with a belt on November 11, 2015 because she “borrowed flip-flops from [her] friend[.]” Complainant testified that appellant hit her “a lot” on the arms, hands, and legs, and that appellant hit her once on the forehead. Complainant stated that she left the couple’s apartment and called police “many times.” Complainant waited near the apartment complex’s leasing office until Houston Police Officer Ricardo Gonzalez arrived approximately four hours later. Complainant returned to the couple’s apartment with Officer Gonzalez, but appellant was not at the apartment. According to complainant, she had a friend take pictures of her injuries after Officer Gonzalez left. Five photographs of complainant were admitted into evidence; the photographs show red marks and bruising on complainant’s upper arms and a red mark on her forehead. Complainant testified that the red marks were “belt marks.” While cross-examining complainant, appellant’s trial counsel questioned her regarding an alleged assault that occurred the day before complainant called 9-1-1: TRIAL COUNSEL: Were you beaten on November 10th? COMPLAINANT: Yes. TRIAL COUNSEL: Okay. And why didn’t you call police on November 10th? 2 COMPLAINANT: I don’t — I don’t want — my culture is not to call. Go be — that is not my culture. I’m giving every time chance to [sic] him to change. Complainant acknowledged that she, appellant, and the couple’s two children were preparing to return to India. At the time of trial, complainant was applying for a U visa “for people who claim to be the victims of domestic violence.” Complainant acknowledged that, “if [she] cooperate[d] with law enforcement[,] that [she] can . . . get legal status in this country.” Officer Gonzalez, who responded to complainant’s 9-1-1 call, testified that he saw “red marks” on complainant’s forehead and arms when he met her at the apartment complex’s leasing office. According to Officer Gonzalez, complainant told him she “didn’t want to pursue charges against” appellant but wanted Officer Gonzalez to “explain to [appellant] that . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals