110, 114-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). See also Plummer v. State, 410 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (the definition of deadly weapon "now includes any instrument that threatens or causes serious bodily injury, even when the instrument is not inherently or intentionally deadly.”) (emphasis in original). 18 . See Pruett v. State, 484 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2015) (citing Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Sierra v. State, 280 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795, 799-800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); and Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997) (pet. dism’d)). 19 . Drichas, 175 S.W.3d at 799 citing Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 20 . See e.g., Brister, 449 S.W.3d at 494-95 (<HOLDING>); Sierra, 280 S.W.3d at 256 (holding that the
holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a deadlyweapon finding because a motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon per se and there was no testimony in the record that defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that although defendants vehicle was not used with deadly effect it was a deadly weapon because it was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury if not for an oncoming drivers evasive maneuver holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury holding that indictment alleging serious bodily injury caused by motor vehicle colliding with a fixed object provides sufficient notice of states intent to seek deadly weapon finding