Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A grand jury indicted appellant for burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code �30.02. The state presented evidence at the guilt phase of trial that, during July 2002, appellant was present at the scene of a burglary, was later found in possession of a truck observed at the scene of the crime, and was identified by the complainant as a possible participant in the burglary. A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a habitation, and the judge sentenced appellant to 28 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. Appellant appealed, asserting that the trial court erred, because the evidence was both legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. The court of appeals, relying on Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and Texas Penal Code ��7.01 and 30.02, reversed the guilty verdict and found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because no direct evidence linked appellant to the commission of the burglary. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, the court of appeals also concluded that the state’s case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and that the state had failed to prove that appellant, either acting alone or as a party, entered the complainant’s house without consent to commit or attempt to commit theft. Because it reversed appellant’s conviction on the basis of legal insufficiency, the court of appeals did not address the factual sufficiency of the evidence in appellant’s case. HOLDING:The court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case to the court of appeals to address the factual-sufficiency grounds raised in appellant’s brief. An individual may be guilty of burglary of a habitation even though he does not personally enter the burglarized premises, if he is acting together with another in the commission of the offense. Clark v. State, 543 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The court of appeals appears to have incorporated an additional requirement � that appellant is required to actually enter the complainant’s house in order to be found guilty of burglary of a habitation under the law of parties. This interpretation is supported by neither the statutory language of �7.01 nor the case law of this court. The court of appeals did not focus on the totality of the evidence in the trial court record, the court decides. “A thorough reading of the trial-court record indicates that appellant was identified by the complainant as the man she saw on her property. He was present at the crime scene, he was later found in possession of the truck (which he admitted owning) observed at the scene of the crime, and he hastily left the crime scene after verbally abusing the complainant. A state’s witness testified that she saw a Caucasian male who matched appellant’s general physical description exchanging shirts with an Hispanic male on the sidewalk near the crime scene. Appellant knows a man named Pete Perez, and a search of appellant’s truck after his arrest uncovered a pawn ticket with the name “Pete Perez” on it. The “Pete Perez” known to appellant plead guilty to the same burglary charged in this case. The lack of fingerprint or DNA evidence inside the complainant’s house is irrelevant because it is unnecessary for appellant to enter the complainant’s house to be found guilty under the law of parties, and the jury was instructed on the law of parties.” This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports a finding that any rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation under the law of parties. OPINION:Johnson, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.