Appellant was convicted of aggravated mayhem and several other offenses. On appeal, he argued that there was insufficient evidence that he had the specific intent to maim the victim, and therefore the conviction should be modified to one for simple mayhem. The appellate court disagreed, and affirmed. There were multiple factors which, when taken together, constituted substantial evidence that appellant had the requisite specific intent to maim the victim. His mode of attack (striking the victim only on the head with a steel knife-sharpener, and stopping when the victim’s face was maimed) demonstrated it was not an indiscriminate attack. There was ample evidence of antagonism between the victim’s group and appellant’s group and that the attack was the culmination of a series of hostile encounters. The attack was a direct successful attempt to maim the victim in the face.