Rodney Torres v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed September 14, 2006

Opinion filed September 14, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-05-00364-CR

                                                    __________

                                       RODNEY TORRES, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 26th District Court

                                                      Williamson County, Texas

                                               Trial Court Cause No. 05-431-K26

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Rodney Torres of the offense of burglary of a habitation and assessed his punishment at confinement for sixteen years.  We affirm. 

In his sole point of error, appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to show his guilt as the sole actor in the offense.  In order to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 

Appellant was charged with entering Cathey Carter=s residence without her consent and committing or attempting to commit a theft. The record shows that Carter returned home from work at about 4:30 p.m. on March 10, 2005, to find that her house had been burglarized.  There were papers and lots of broken glass on the floor.  Someone had thrown a rock through the window in the back door.  She had not given anyone consent to enter her house.  The only things missing from her house were eighty to one hundred compact discs, a plastic trash bag, and a plastic bag from Lowe=s.  After contacting the police, Carter discussed the situation with her next-door neighbor, Brandon Dady.

Dady testified that he knew appellant and that he had seen appellant behind his house around 4:00 p.m. that afternoon.  Appellant was walking through Dady=s backyard area but ducked down out of sight when he realized that Dady had seen him. Later, while Dady was talking to Carter, appellant watched them from the park restroom, which was near a drainage ditch. During this time, appellant attempted to avoid detection by peeking in and out from behind the restroom.  This Asquirmy@ behavior was not usual for appellant. 

After her discussion with Dady, Carter retrieved her camera and went down to the ditch where appellant was and tried to photograph him.  Appellant avoided Carter and left hurriedly; he was carrying a white bag with something in it.  In the drainage ditch where appellant had been, Carter recovered a white trash bag like the one taken out of her kitchen trash can.  Inside the trash bag was a sack from Lowe=s and a bunch of her stolen CDs.  Some CDs were still missing.  However, a few days later, she opened her front door to find a picnic basket containing more of her stolen CDs.  She later found a paper sack at her front door; it also contained some of her CDs.

Another witness, Floyce Mounce, testified that he knew about the burglary and that appellant had stayed overnight a couple of nights at Mounce=s house.  In the bedroom where appellant had stayed, Mounce found some CDs. Assuming the CDs belonged to Carter, he put them in a paper sack and left them on Carter=s front porch.  Appellant=s fingerprint was lifted from one of the CD cases that had been left at Carter=s door and was positively identified by a crime scene specialist as being appellant=s left thumb print.

Even though there is no direct evidence placing appellant inside Carter=s house, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offense.  Where there is independent evidence of a burglary, the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods may constitute sufficient evidence of guilt to support a conviction.  Harris v. State, 656 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).  In this case, there was independent evidence of a burglary and also evidence of appellant=s unexplained possession of the stolen CDs.  The next door neighbor saw appellant near Carter=s residence around the time of the offense. Appellant was behaving in an unusual or suspicious manner.  Some of Carter=s CDs were recovered from a ditch where appellant had just been seen.  Other CDs belonging to Carter were found in a room where appellant had been staying; appellant=s fingerprint was located on one of these CDs. From this evidence, a rational jury could have found that appellant entered Carter=s residence and committed a theft. Appellant=s point of error is overruled. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

September 14, 2006 

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.