William Bryan Keith Stallings v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00382-CR
WILLIAM BRYAN KEITH STALLINGS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Two
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1313319D, Honorable Wayne F. Salvant, Presiding
March 17, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant William Bryan Keith Stallings appeals his conviction for burglary of a
habitation by challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying it. He argues
that the evidence was insufficient to prove he entered a habitation, had the intent to
commit theft, or committed a theft or attempted to commit a theft. We overrule the issue
and affirm the judgment.
Javier Gonzales testified that on January 31, 2013, he awoke around 7:00 in the
morning, opened the door to his bedroom, and saw appellant, a man he did not know,
dressed in black walking in his house and towards the back door. The man was
wearing blue latex gloves.
Upon being seen by Gonzales, appellant ran out the back door but was stopped
by Gonzales in the yard by the fence. Gonzales’ cousins came out to lend assistance,
and his sister called the police. Other evidence indicated that appellant carried a
backpack in which was found more blue gloves, a large flashlight, a wrench, and
outdoor black and yellow gloves. On the ground near appellant lay another flashlight, a
blue razor-blade style knife, and a pair of blue latex gloves. Appellant also had a bat in
his coat or overalls.
Later, it was discovered that two cars in the driveway had their doors open and
had been ransacked. In one, the stereo had been disturbed and left in a manner
indicative of someone having tried to remove it. A power saw had also been moved in a
shed and placed by the door.
Appellant testified that he 1) was homeless and a methamphetamine addict, 2)
had bought drugs at the house several days earlier, 3) had returned to the house on
January 31 to purchase more drugs, 4) knocked on the door and asked for “Pancho,” 5)
was told that Pancho was not there, and 6) was attacked and had his money stolen
when he tried to leave. Appellant also attempted to explain why he possessed the
aforementioned items appearing in his backpack and denied being in the home that day
or having any intent to break into the house.
The applicable standard of review is discussed in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In applying it, we must determine whether the State
proved that appellant, without the effective consent of the owner, entered a habitation
2
with the intent to commit theft or committed or attempted to commit a theft. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1)&(3) (West 2011). Next, intent to commit theft may be inferred
from circumstantial evidence. Moreno v. State, 702 S.W.2d 636, 741 (Tex. Crim. App.
1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Furthermore, property need not be taken to support conviction. See
Ortega v. State, 626 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see also Ex parte
Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that the offense is
complete once unlawful entry is made, without regard to whether the intended theft is
also completed). Finally, evidence of intent may be sufficient when the defendant is
found in the home and immediately flees even though nothing in the home is disturbed.
Stearn v. State, 571 S.W.2d 177, 177-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Here, there was testimony that appellant was discovered without permission in
the home of Javier Gonzales and his parents and that he ran when he was seen by
Gonzales. That, coupled with the evidence of 1) the items discovered on appellant and
in his backpack and 2) the cars and shed having been disturbed is some circumstantial
evidence from which a rational jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
entered the habitation with intent to commit theft or in an attempt to commit theft.1
That appellant offered another possible explanation for his presence on the
property and denied having entered the house or having any intent to commit theft does
not render the evidence insufficient. Conflicts in the evidence are for the resolution of
the jurors, Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), and we defer to
1
A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act that
amounts to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense
intended. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.01(a) (West 2011).
3
their decision if it is rational. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d at 902. It is rational
here.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
4