Mejia v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | NO. 02-10-00064-CR,NO. 02-10-00060-CR,NO. 02-10-00063-CR,NO. 02-10-00062-CR,NO. 02-10-00065-CR,NO. 02-10-00066-CR,NO. 02-10-00067-CR,NO. 02-10-00061-CR,02-10-00060-CR,02-10-00061-CR,02-10-00062-CR,02-10-00063-CR,02-10-00064-CR,02-10-00065-CR,02-10-00066-CR,02-10-00067-CR |
| Parties | DINO MEJIA APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
In six points, pro se appellant Dino Mejia appeals his convictions for eight burglaries.2 We affirm.
Background Facts
In 2008, through separate indictments, the State charged appellant with burglarizing eight habitations. The indictments contained enhancement paragraphs alleging that appellant had been previously convicted of two felonies. The trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant, and the parties filed several pretrial documents.
A jury found appellant guilty of all eight burglaries. The trial court found the indictments' enhancement paragraphs to be true and sentenced appellant to seventy-five years' confinement on each offense. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other, but it decreed that all of the sentences could not begin to run until the expiration of a sentence for appellant's burglary conviction from Dallas County.3 Appellant filed a motion for new trial and brought these appeals.
Evidentiary Sufficiency
In his first two points, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to 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, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Isassi v. State, 330S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).4 This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638.
The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2075 (2009); see also Bottenfield v. State, 77 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd) (), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 916 (2003). Thus, when performing an evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Instead, we "determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in thelight most favorable to the verdict." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638. The standard of review is the same for direct and circumstantial evidence cases; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor. Isassi, 330 S.W.3d at 638; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
A person commits burglary if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person enters a habitation and intends to commit theft, attempts to commit theft, or commits theft. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (3); see also Gilbertson v. State, 563 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) ( that a burglarious entry into a habitation may be established by circumstantial evidence). A person commits theft by unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of it. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2011); Liggens v. State, 50 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). To "appropriate" personal property is "to acquire or otherwise exercise control over" it. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(4)(B) (West Supp. 2011). Unexplained or unreasonably explained possession of recently stolen property by the defendant may raise an inference of guilt. See Rollerson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 718, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Poncio v. State, 185 S.W.3d 904, 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).The State's evidence
The Mathis burglary
On April 10, 2008, Heather Mathis left her Lewisville home to work at a private preschool. At the end of the day, she picked up her son, went home, and noticed that "[e]verything had been completely destroyed." A window was busted, picture frames were broken, a back door was open, and Mathis's bedroom had been ransacked. Without permission, someone had entered Mathis's house and had taken a television, VCR, DVD player, video camera, cash, checks, jewelry, and other items.
The Goetz burglary
Ruth Goetz arrived at her Lewisville home at around 5 p.m. on April 30, 2008. When Goetz drove through a gate to enter her house's backyard area, she noticed that the back door was open, and when she walked in, she "realized that [she had] been burglarized." Goetz noticed that her television was gone, her entertainment center was almost empty, some jewelry and tools had been taken, and there were "things just thrown on the floor." Because someone had taken her property without her permission, Goetz called the police.
The Marshall burglary
The same day that Goetz's house was burglarized, Jennifer Marshall arrived home in Lewisville at approximately 9 p.m. Upon entering the house, Marshall noticed that lights were on and that a laundry room door was open. Marshall called the police. After the police arrived, Marshall saw that a windowwas broken, and she noticed that jewelry, a mandolin, and small electronics had been stolen. Marshall later recovered some of the stolen property from the police, but she did not recover the mandolin. She testified that she had not given anyone permission to be in her home or to take her property.
The Walker burglary
On May 6, 2008, Matthew Walker went to his Lewisville home after eating lunch with his wife, and when he arrived, he saw muddy footprints on the carpet that had not previously been there. When he went upstairs, he noticed that items had been scattered on the floor and that some of his property, including a television and two laptop computers, had been taken without his permission.
On the day of the robbery, one of Walker's neighbors, James Sterett, a convicted felon, came home from running errands and saw a gray station wagon parked in his own driveway with duct tape covering the license plate. Sterett then saw a man coming from Walker's house. The man was Hispanic, middle-aged, had a mustache, and was wearing jeans, a shirt, a light jacket, and a cap. Sterett approached the man and said, The man responded that he was looking for a friend whom he thought lived at Walker's house. The man then drove down an alley, but after Sterett went inside his house, the man returned. Sterett went back outside, and the man drove away from the neighborhood. When Sterett learned that Walker's house had been burglarized, he told the police about what he had seen.
Some of Walker's other neighbors, the Buffingtons, had security cameras mounted on their house. Walker viewed the recording from the day of the robbery, and he brought pictures from the recording to trial.
Max Gehrke, a Lewisville police officer, was assigned to investigate Walker's burglary (along with Mathis's burglary). He testified that the police could not find usable fingerprints at Walker's house.5 He viewed the Buffingtons' security recording, which showed a gray Dodge Magnum, a station-wagon-like car, that entered the alley of Walker's residence in the time fame of the burglary. Officer Gehrke put pictures taken from the recording on ListServ, and the response that Officer Gehrke received caused him to develop appellant as a suspect for the burglary.6
Weeks after the burglary, Officer Gehrke showed Sterett a black and white photographic lineup with six similarly looking men, and Sterett chose appellant as the man he had seen on May 6. Sterett, who testified that he is "very good at remembering faces," also identified appellant in court as the man with whom hehad conversed near Walker's house.7 He testified, "I was trying to look very hard at [appellant's] face . . . because I knew he had to be doing something no-good with the duct tape on the license plate, . . . and I wanted to remember what he looked like." On cross-examination by appellant's counsel, Sterett conceded that he had not noticed tattoos on appellant on the date of the offense. Appellant testified later that he has two tattoos on his face.
The Hernandez burglary
After leaving work, Jaime Hernandez went to his Flower Mound home with his wife and children on May 13, 2008. When Hernandez entered his house, he noticed that lights were on, there was a "mess on the floor," and a computer desk had been moved. Hernandez called the police, and after they arrived, Hernandez saw a shattered window and discovered that his computer and some framed oil paintings were missing. Hernandez had not given anyone permission to enter his house or to take his property.
The Whipple burglary
On the afternoon of May 14, 2008, the day after the burglary of Hernandez's house, Melody Whipple arrived at her house and noticed that her front door was unlocked, which was unusual. After opening the door, seeing thatthe back door was "wide open," and noticing that a keyboard had been placed upside down on the top of a couch, Whipple called 911. When the police arrived, Whipple learned that a burglar had...
To continue reading
Request your trial