See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 30

. 02 (a)(3), (c)(2) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 1 See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 51

. 03 , 54

. 04 (Ve rno n 2 00 8). 2 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0055 2-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
IN THE M A

TTER OF C . I . G. , A

JUVENILE
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 38t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas ,

sittin g as a ju v en ile co urt. 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z The Stat e c harg ed app e lla n t, C.I. G., a j uv eni le, w it h burg lar y of a habi tati on. 1 Appel lan t pl eaded “ not t ru e.” F ollo w ing a be nch tr ial , t he tr ial co urt found t hat a ppel lan t eng ag ed i n del inq uent condu ct as all eg ed by the Stat e, pl aced him on probati on for one y ear , and req uired th e pay ment of re sti tuti on. In a si ng le is sue, appel lan t c hal len g es the 2 leg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t h is a dju dic ati on of del inq uentA pp el l an t c ha l l en ge s o nl y t he l eg al su ffi c i en c y of t he evi de nc e s up po rt i ng hi s ad j ud i c ati on . H ow eve r, 3 h e d is c u s s e s th e s ta n d a r d o fr e v ie w f o r f a c tu a l s u ff ic ie n c y, a n d a t o n e p o in t, a r g u e s th a t “f a c tu a lly a n d le g a lly, t he e v i d e n c e f a i l s . ” O u t o f a n a b u n d a n c e o f c a u t i o n , we c o n s t r u e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t a s c h a l l engi ng t he l egal and f act ual suff i ci encyof t he e v i dence suppor t i ng h i s adj udi cat i on. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 4 .0 3 (f ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); I n r e M. C

. L. , 1 1 0 S .W .3 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 4 ( T e x . A p p .– A u s tin 4 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.).

I n r e M. C

. L. , 1 1 0 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 4 ; s e e a ls o I n re J

. O

. T. , N o . 1 3 -0 6 -2 2 6 -C V , 2 0 0 7 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 5 5 6 3 7 , a t *2 -3 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti J u l y 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). 2 condu ct. W e aff ir m.

3 Back ground On M ay 10 , 2 0 0 8 , Irma Me rc ado and her g ra ndson , J .A.R ., re tur ned home and dis cov ered th a t J. A.R .’ s D ell l aptop comput er w as mis si ng . Me rc ado t est ified thatsh e spok e w it h Beni to Tov ar , w ho rented a s pace “i n the bac k” of Me rc ado’ s d u p le x . Tov ar tol d M ercado that he had seen tw o boys c oming from t he rear of the h ouse, and that one had “ someth ing hi dden” under neath his sh ir t. M e rca d o c all ed th e pol ic e, an d bas ed on T ovar’s descript ion of

the bo y s, directed the po lice to a hou se down t he street . Th e po lice drove To v ar to the nea rbyhou se, w here app ellantand num erou s siblings liv ed. The police brou g hto ne o f ap pe l l an t’ s s i bl i ng s o utt o th e po l i c e c ar , bu t Tov ar d i d no t rec og ni z e hi m. The pol ic e the n broug ht appell ant out, and T ov ar identi fied him as one of the boy s he sa w ru nni ng from M ercado’ s h ouse. Tov ar al so ide nti fied appe ll ant a t t ri al. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Adju dicatio ns of

delinquen cy

in juv enile cases a re base d on the crimina l stand ard of proof. W e therefore re v iew adj udi cat ion s of de li nq uency i n j uv eni le cas es by

appl y ing 4 the same stand ards app licable to suf f iciency of

the evidence challen ges in cr imina l cases. 5 In conducti ng a leg al suffici ency rev iew , w e v iew

the re lev ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether a ra ti onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e foundH o o p e r v . S ta te , 214 S. W

. 3d 9 , 13 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) ( ci t i ng J a c k s o n v . Vir g in ia , 443 U

. S. 307 , 6 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 )) ; E s c a m i lla v . S ta te , 14 3 S

. W

. 3d 81 4, 81 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt. 3 8 .0 4 (V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); B e c k h a m v . S ta te , 29 S. W

. 3d 1 48, 151 7 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ).

Kin g v . S ta te , 2 9 S .W .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Beckham , 29 S. W

. 3d a t 151

. 8 Beckham , 29 S. W

. 3d a t 151

. 9 W a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S

. W

. 3d 40 4, 41 4-1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 10 J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 11 S w e a rin g e n v . S ta te , 10 1 S

. W

. 3d 89 , 97 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 03 ). 12 3 the e ss enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re a so n a ble doubt

. The t ri er of fact i s t he 6
s o le ju d ge o f

t h e fa c t s , t h e c re d ib il it y o f t h e wit n e s s e s , a n d t h e we ig h tgi ve n t o t e s t im o n y. 7 W e do not reev alu ate t he w eig ht an d cred ibi li ty of the ev ide nce, and w e do not s ubst it ute our own judgmen t for thatof the trier of

fact. Instea d, w e con sider wh e t h er the jury 8
re ached a rati onal dec is ion

. 9 W hen c onducti ng a fact ual s u f f ici ency rev iew , w e v iew

al l of the ev ide nce in a neutra l ligh t to d eter mine w hether a j ur y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t beyond a
re asona ble doubt

. W e w il l set the v erdict asi de onl y if (1 ) the ev ide nce is so w eak that 10 the v erdict i s c lea rl y

w ro ng and manifestly

unj ust , or

( 2) the v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d p re p onderance of the ev ide nce. “ Al thoug h aut hor iz ed to di sag re e w it h the 11 jur y ’s dete rmi nati on ev en i f probat iv e ev ide nce ex is ts w hic h s upport s the v erdict, a re v iew ing co urt mus t g iv e due deferenc e to the fact finder ’s dete rmi nati ons conc er nin g the
w eight and credibility

of t he evidence and wil l reverse t he fact f inde r’s determ inatio n on ly t o a rr e s tt h e o c c u rr e n c e o f a m a n ife s tin ju s t ic e . ” Un le s s we ca n sa y wit h so m e o bje c t ive 12 basi s i n the record tha t t he g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce co n tr a d ictsW atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 7

. 13 S e e S im s v . S ta te , 99 S

. W

. 3d 60 0, 60 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 03 ). 14 M a likv . S ta te , 9 5 3 S .W .2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , 190 S. W

. 3d 8 56, 15 8 6 3 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); A d i v . S ta te , 9 4 S .W .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ).

G o lllih a r v . S ta te , 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); M a lik , 953 S. W

. 2d a t 240

. 16 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 3 0 .0 2 (a )( 3 ); H er nande z , 1 9 0 S .W .3 d a t 8 6 3

. 17 H er nande z , 1 9 0 S .W .3 d a t 8 6 3

. 18 E s p in o za v . S ta te , 9 5 5 S .W .2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 (T e x . A p p .– W a c o 1 9 9 7 , p e t. re f'd ). 19 4 the j ur y ’s v erdict, w e w il l not re v erse the jud g ment as factual ly i nsuffici ent. I n c onducti ng

13 a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e mustal so dis cus s t he ev ide nce t h a t, a ccordin g to the appel lan t, most under mines the jur y ’s v erdict. 14 Both leg al and factu al suffici ency are measure d bythe ele ments of the offense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Su ch a charg e is one that acc uratel y se ts 15 outthe law, i s auth oriz ed b y the ind ictme nt, d oes n ot un nece ssarily restrict the Sta te’s theor ies of li abi li ty , and adequa tel y descr ibe s the part ic ula r offense for w hic h the defendant
w as tr ied

. I n the present cas e, under a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, t he factfind er 16
w as re q uired to find, bey ond a re asona ble doubt , t hat: ( 1) C .I. G.; ( 2) on o r about Ma y 10, 200 8; (3) inten tiona lly

or know ingly ; (4) entere d a ha bita t io n ; ( 5 ) w ithou t the ow ner’s ef fective co nsen t; and (6) atte mp ted t o com mit, or comm itted , the f t of a lapto p com put er. 17 W hen a defendant is charg ed under subs ect ion (a )( 3) of s ect ion 30.02 of the pena l code, t h e S t a t e i s n o tre q u i re d t o p ro v e t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n ti n t e n d e d t o c o mm i tt h e fe l o n y o r t h e ft at t he ti me of entr

y . The S tate must si mply prov e tha t t h e d e fe n d a nt i ntent ion all y or 18 know ing ly

ente re d the bui ldi ng or habi tati on w it hout the o w ner ’s co nsentand w hil e i nsi de, commi tted or

att empted t o c ommit a felony or theft. The “ entr

y ” requ ire m e n t in the 19W o o te n v . S ta te , 205 S. W

. 3d 8 9, 91 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 2006, no pet

. ) ( quot i ng G rif fin v . S ta te , 20 8 1 5 S .W .2 d 5 7 6 , 5 7 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ))

.

H er nande z , 1 9 0 S .W .3 d a t 8 6 3

. 21 E a rls v . S ta te , 70 7 S

. W

. 2d 82 , 85 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 86 ). 22 R o b e rs o n v . S ta te , 1 6 S .W .3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 7 (T e x . A p p .– A u s ti n 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ). 23 5 burg lar y st atute i s i ntended to protect “t he int er ior or encl osed par t of the desc ri bed obj ect , be i t a house , a bui ldi ng or a v ehi cl e.” Gui ltof the offense of burg lar

y ca n be est abl is hed 20 ci rc umstan ti all y

by the combi ned and cu m u la tiv e forc e of al l the i ncr imi nati ng circumsta nces. 21 Ident ity ca n b e e s t a b li shed by

ei ther di re ct or ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce. I denti ty may 22 even be pro v en b y

inferen ces. 23 Discus sion In s u p p o rto f

hi s a rg ument t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent, appel la n ta rg u e s t h a t“ [ t] h i s i s a c a s e o f p i c k i n g u p t h e u s u a l s u s p e c t s . ” A p p ell ant emphasi zes t h a t (1 ) Tov ar sa w two boys c oming out of the hal lway w here “ the washer
ro om” w as loc ated at M ercado’ s duple x , not the m ain part of the house; (2) T ov ar saw one of the bo y s carry ing somet hing und er his shirt, but did not know w het her i t w as a com put er; and (3) the missing lapto p w as no t foun d. App ellantrelies on his ow n v ersion of ev ent s, w hic h, al ong w it h the tes ti mony of other w it ness es, w e det ail bel ow . Off ic er Ma rt in Sandov al of t he Brow nsv il le Pol ic e Dep artment tes ti fied thathe
re s p o n d e d t o t h e b u rg la ry c a ll

. Of f ic e r S a n d o va l was t o ld t h a tT o va r h a d se e n two b o ys lea v ing M ercado’ s h ouse, and that he bel iev ed one of the boys l iv ed dow n the st re et. Base d on infor mati on f ro m Tov ar , Off ic er Sandov al w ent to the hous e, t old the re si dents he w as inv est ig ati ng a t heft of a l aptop, and that he w as loo ki ng for a j uv eni le. O ff ic erAccor di ng t o T ov ar , M er cado’ s apar t m ent has a “ hal l way ” wher e t he washe r and dr y erar e l ocat ed. 24 T o v a r s a w th e b o ys r u n n in g o u t o fth e h a llw a y. 6 Sandov al ar ra ng ed for another off ic er to dr iv e Tov ar to the h ouse. A juv eni le re si dent of the hom e (one of

C.I.G.’s sib li n gs ) wa s b rought ou tside, but T ovar said that th e susp ect
w as “s hor

ter .” Officer

Sando v al then broug ht C .I. G. outs ide , and Tov ar pos it iv ely

i denti fied him. Off ic er Saul Domi ng uez of the Brow nsv il le Pol ic e Dep artment tes ti fied th at he w as the “back-up” of

f icer that d rov e T ovar to th e suspe ct’s h ouse , w hich w as abo ut half a block from M ercado’ s h ouse. O ff ic er D oming ueztes ti fied th at Tov ar i denti fied appe ll ant. Tov ar tes ti fied th at ea rlie r in the a fternoon , he saw two boys c oming out of the “washer room” at M ercado’ s resi dence

. Ac cordin g to Tov ar , he did not know the boy s b y 24 name, an d di d notkn ow w here theyliv ed, but sai d that he w as able to ide nti fy them. Tov ar tes ti fied th at w hen t he pol ic e broug ht t he f irst boy out, he “ tol d the m no, that w as not t he one.” W hen t he s econd boy ( appel lan t) w as b ro u ght o u t, Tov ar i denti fied hi m. Tov ar tes ti fied th at he di d notse e the boy s w it h a l aptop comput er ; he onl y sa w them ru nni ng w it h “s omethi ng under

thei r ar m.” Tov ar

sa w the boy s i n day li g ht, at a dis tanc e of about thi rty feet. Tov ar

made an i n- cour

t i denti ficat ion of appel lan t. Me rc ado t est ified th a t sh e r etur ned home to find her door forc ed open

. Her gra n d so n ’s la p to p co m p u te r, w h ich h a d b e e n pu rch a se d ata p a wn sh o p , was m iss in g. She t est ified thatappel lan t w as not a fri end of her g ra ndson ’s , buttha t sh e so meti mes allowed him to co me in a nd w atch t elevision with h er grand son. She also sta ted thatthere is a pa rk near her home, and that a lotof chil dren l iv e i n the nei g hbor hood. W hen as ked
w hatshe told the po lice, Mercado testif ied as follows:7

A: I told them w hat had happened and that [Tov ar] ident ified the smal l chi ld. Si nce I k now

hi m, he w as the o n ly o n e thatkn ew thatmy g ra ndson had a la p to p . I w ent a nd I tol d the m w here the hous e w as of this boy ’s famil y . I just sh o we d t h e m and he brou ght me b ack. He too k [To v ar] and [To v ar] tal ked and t hen i denti fied hi m, and that’ s i t. Q [ the C our

t]: O kay

. So w hat you’ re s ay ing , i f I am c or re ct, i s a fter you heard w hat [ Tov ar] s aid and after y ou s aw w hat w as mis si ng , y ou s uspected tha t it might be the boy tha t cam e over to y our ho use a nd you knew w here he l iv ed? A [Mercado ]: Y es. Q [ the C our

t]: The poli ceman didn ’tjustpick out some house and go to t he door

. He w ent t o the one y ou s ent h im t o? A: N o, I t oo kh i m. Q: Okay. [Tovar] didn’t te ll you, “It’s the little boy that liv es in tha t hou se”? A: No. I t ook them t o tha t hou se and t hen t hey took [Tov ar] t o tha t hou se. Q: And that’ s b ecaus e y ou s uspected t he l ittl e boy from t hat h ouse? A: Y es, bec ause by

hi s d esc ri pti on. J. A. R. , Me rca d o ’s gra n d so n , t e st if ie d th a t ap p e lla n t an d two o f ap p e lla n t’ s si b lin gs hav e al l been athi s h ouse sin ce he acq uired th e l aptop. H e tes ti fied th at he su spected one of the si bli ng s t ook the l aptop, and conv ey ed hi s s uspi ci on to M e rca d o b e fore the pol ic e ar ri v ed. El iz abeth Gar

z a, on e of appel lan t’ s t eache rs , t est ified sh e had g iv en appe ll ant a n old er model H P l aptop comput er , butthati t w as not in g ood wor ki ng order

. The HP l aptop
w or ked int er mitt entl y , buthad some “ g li tch es” thatca used itto shutdow n a fte r a few minut es. Appel lan t, w ho w as ten y ears o ld at t he ti me of the offe n se , te st if ie d tha t on the af terno on in questio n, he took his own laptop and w alked to Merca d o ’s h o u s e to see ifSee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 3 0 .0 2 (a )( 3 ); H er nande z , 1 9 0 S .W .3 d a t 8 6 3

. 25 See W atson , 204 S. W

. 3d a t 414
- 15. 26 8 J.A.R. cou ld repair it. He stated thathe carrie d t h e l apt op u nde r his shirt beca use h is hands w ere s ti cky

and he di d notw ant t o drop i t. After deter mini ng that no one w as home, app ellantsaid he retu rned hom e. He state d he w ent to the Mercado hou se alon e an d did not s ee Tov ar

or any one else there. Appel lan t t est ified thathe t old the off ic ers h e had
seen tw o oth er

ki ds ru nni ng from t he di re cti on of M ercado’ s h ouse. Appel lan t’ s mot her

tes ti fied th at on the day i n q uest ion , app ell ant l eft the house w it h his lap top under his shi rtto hav e i t repai re d at his fri end’ s h ouse. Sh e al so tes ti fied th at her so n had a l aptop comput er and s he had inv it ed th e pol ic e off ic ers i n to v iew i t, but t hey had dec li ned t o do so. At t he end of the present ati on of tes ti mony , th e tr ial co urt found t hat “ all of the ele ments hav e been met beyond a re asona ble doubt .” App e llantemphas iz es that (1 ) “a t mos t,” appel lan t “ mayhav e been in the w ro ng pla ce at the w ro ng ti me;” (2 ) Tov ar di d notse e the boys c oming out of Mercado’ s h ome, but i nst ead, saw

them comi ng out of a hal lway w here the “ w asher

room” w as loc ated; ( 3) a par k was loc ated near by , and “ a l ot of ki ds usual ly ra n about the p ro per ty ;” ( 4) no l aptop
w as re cov ered; a nd ( 5) therefore, “t he burden by the sta te ha s n ot be en met. ” Viewi ng the evidence in the l ight mo st favorable to th e v erdict, we conclude there
w as leg all y

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to prov e that appel lan t eng ag ed i n del inq uent condu ct as all eg ed by

the Stat e. F urther more, v iew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c annot say

25 that the e v ide nce w as so w eak that appel lan t’ s a dju dic ati on w as ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce or w as manifest ly unj ust

. Ac cordin g ly , w e find that

269

the e v ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t app ell ant’ s a dju dic ati on. Conclusion W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

____ LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 31s t day

of Aug ust , 200 9.