Fernandez v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-87-01105-CR,01-87-01105-CR |
| Citation | 755 S.W.2d 220 |
| Parties | Emilio Patrick FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John F. Carrigan, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmer, Harris County Dist. Atty., Cathy Herasimchuk, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harris County, for appellee.
Before JACK SMITH, COHEN and BISSETT, JJ.
The trial court found appellant guilty of theft by receiving, found the enhancement allegations to be true, and assessed punishment at 35 years imprisonment.
In his first point of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. The only evidence implicating the appellant is the hearsay testimony of Houston Police Officer J.C. Jaloma and complainant Kevin Domain. Officer Jaloma testified that on November 25, 1986, Margie Fernandez, wife of appellant and a previous acquaintance of Jaloma's, came to his home and told him that appellant was disassembling a stolen car in their garage. She told officer Jaloma that appellant worked on the stolen vehicle every evening after work. She said that she was tired of living a criminal life, and that she wanted appellant to be punished. She led Jaloma to her home, signed a consent to search form, and opened the garage door. Jaloma found a disassembled vehicle inside the garage. He called in the VIN number and determined that the vehicle was, in fact, stolen. Officer Jaloma then proceeded to search the garage and house. The stolen vehicle was dusted for latent fingerprints, but none were found. No evidence was recovered from inside the house. Officer Jaloma testified that while inside the house, he found no evidence that a man lived in the house. Complainant Domain's testimony was consistent with that of Officer Jaloma. He testified that he arrived at Ms. Fernandez's home after being contacted by Officer Jaloma and informed that his vehicle had been recovered. Domain testified that Ms. Fernandez told him that appellant had been working on the stolen vehicle.
At trial, Jaloma testified without objection about the conversation that he had with Ms. Fernandez, and about his subsequent discovery of the stolen vehicle. Ms. Fernandez then testified, recanting her former statements to Jaloma, and claiming that she had lied to Jaloma because she was angry with appellant for seeing another woman. She stated that she had sought to punish him by linking him with the stolen vehicle. She testified that on a prior occasion, she had also filed false charges against appellant after an argument, in an act of revenge. Evidence of the previously filed charges was introduced. Ms. Fernandez testified that a man named Louis had been living in her home as a boarder, and in her opinion, Louis was the person responsible for placing the stolen vehicle in the garage.
All of the evidence against appellant is circumstantial. The standard of review in such a case is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (op. on reh'g). A conviction based upon circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the circumstances do not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the defendant. Johnson v. State, 673 S.W.2d 190, 195 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).
The only evidence in this case linking appellant with the stolen vehicle is the hearsay evidence of the conversations between Margie Fernandez, Officer Jaloma, and Domain, as introduced in Jaloma's and Domain's testimony. At trial, no objection was made to the introduction of this hearsay testimony. Without this evidence, there would be no evidence to sustain appellant's conviction.
Hearsay admitted without objection has probative value and may be the basis for sustaining a verdict. Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The facts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. State
...to the crime. See Machado v. State, 753 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (arson case); Fernandez v. State, 755 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (theft Even viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that no rational finder of ......
-
Doyle v. State
...pet. granted); Chambers v. State, 755 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. granted). Fernandez v. State, 755 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist] 1988, pet. granted); Machado v. State, 753 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), pet. ref'd, per curiam, 759 S.W.2......
-
State v. Ramsey
...Chambers v. State, 755 S.W.2d 907, 910 (Tex.Ct.App.1988), review granted, No. 01-86-00520-CR (April 26, 1989); Fernandez v. State, 755 S.W.2d 220, 222 (Tex.Ct.App.1988), review granted, No. 01-87-1105-CR (May 3, 1989). These cases are consistent with Utah law which holds that uncorroborated......
-
Fernandez v. State
...direct appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed appellant's conviction, and ordered the entry of an acquittal. Fernandez v. State, 755 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.App.--Houston [1 Dist.] 1988). In reversing appellant's conviction, the Court of Appeals decided the evidence was insufficient to support appel......