to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because there was no evidence that appellant was threatened by real or apparent deadly force, he was not entitled to instructions on self-defense or apparent danger. Therefore, appellant’s first and third points of error should be overruled, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. 1 . It is undisputed in this case that misdemeanor assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault. 2 . Appellant’s brief does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show either that he seriously injured the complainant or that he used a deadly weapon to do so, but only whether he was entitled to additional jury instructions 3 . Although in another context this statement could also support an argument that the pp.1994) (<HOLDING>); Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 808
holding that deadly force was unreasonable where according to the plaintiffs version of facts the decedent possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot him holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where appellant was aware of the decedents violent history decedent had a gun in his car and appellant used force only after decedent had made an attempt to approach his car holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where complainant was armed with a coke bottle holding that instruction on use of deadly force was not required where there was no evidence that decedent had attempted to assault appellant appellant could not retreat or that decedent was armed