With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". lot. He said that less than fifteen seconds passed before Appellant caught them and struck them with his truck three times, jarring them. Gary testified that Appellant followed them after Randy turned right and was “coming up on [them] really fast.” Gary said that after Randy hit the brakes, Appellant “barely missed” them and drove into a ditch. This evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Appellant intentionally or knowingly threatened Randy and Gary with imminent bodily injury. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(2); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see also Dominique v. State, No. 01-09-00385-CR, 2010 WL 1571180, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 8, 2010, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). The evidence is also legally sufficient to

A: recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction
B: holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to sustain conviction for aggravated assault on a public servant and stating that the jury reasonably could have inferred that dominiques conduct was intentional based on his repeated attempts to run down the police officers who stood in his way
C: holdingthat evidence was sufficient to support defendants convictions on rape and aggravated assault charges
D: holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant
B.