MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury found Appellant, James Bryant, guilty of the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.^[1] Upon Appellant’s plea of “true” to an enhancement allegation, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for fifteen years and imposed a fine of $7,500. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. Appellant asserts two issues on appeal: a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and a due process challenge. We affirm.

893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, we examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and any reasonable inferences from it, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence; we may not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our own judgment for that of the factfinder. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. The jury is free to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). IV. Discussion and Analysis Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the glass vase was a deadly weapon and contends that the State failed to meet its burden that the glass vase was, in the manner of its use, capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The Penal Code defines a deadly weapon as “a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury” or “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” PENAL § 1.07(a)(17). “Serious bodily injury” is defined in part as “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death.” Id. § 1.07(a)(46). Expert or lay testimony may be sufficient to support a deadly weapon finding. See Tucker v. State, 274 S.W.3d 688, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); English v. State, 647 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Sergeant Simpson went to the house on the night in question and, at trial, identified a photo of the identical glass vase. He testified that, based on his training and experience, the glass vase could be used as a deadly weapon. Appellant testified on his own behalf and denied that he assaulted Griffin with a deadly weapon. He said that things “got a little bit out of hand” and that he hit Griffin with the glass vase. He also said that he regretted his actions and that he had not intended to hurt Griffin. The jury, as the trier of fact, was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.13 (West 2007), art. 38.04 (West 1979). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that a reasonable factfinder could have found that, in the manner of its use, the glass vase that Appellant broke over Griffin’s head was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See PENAL § 1.07(a)(17), (46); Tucker, 274 S.W.3d at 691– 92; see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We overrule Appellant’s first issue. Appellant also asserts that his due process rights were violated when he was convicted on “no evidence.” Because we have held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, we overrule Appellant’s second issue. See Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 206–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. V. This Court’s Ruling We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

May 6, 2016 MIKE WILLSON Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). JUSTICE Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.