NO. 07-07 -046 4-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER4, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ O. C. HAW LEY, III, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; TH NO. 07-02 -635 4; HON. HAROLD PHELA N, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and H AN CO CK and PIR TLE, J J.

ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, O. C. H aw ley , I II, appeal s h is co nv ictio n for burg lar y of a habi tati on by com mission of

a felon y , criminal m ischief , and subse quen ts e n ten ce of 40 years confine ment i n the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of t he Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and fi ne o f $1 0, 00 0. W e affi r m.2 Factual Bac kg ro und On D e ce mber 29, 2 006, Ron Sei g man, J r. , and hi s famil y w ere i n the ir

home. At approx imat ely

5:00 A.M ., Sei g man w oke up becaus e a fan s itti ng cl ose to t he bed sto pped w or ki ng . After inv est ig ati ng , Sei g man deter mined that the house did not have el ect ri cal pow er . W hil e tr

y ing to asc ertai n the caus e of the power outa g e, S eig man heard s omeone, later iden t if ied as ap pellan t, try ing to break into his house . Seigman g ath ered his fa mily in a bat hroo m and l ocked the doo r. Seigma n’s w ife called 911 on he r cell pho ne. W hile w aiting for the a rriv al of law enforcem ent , S e igm an co uld he ar som eon e ransa cking his home. W hen t he pol ic e ar ri v ed, t h e y ca ptured appe ll ant. After retur n of an i ndi ctment all eg ing burg lar

y of a habi tati on by

co mmiss ion of a felony , cr imi nal mis chi ef, the matter w as tr ied to the cour

t w it hout a jur

y . Sei g man v ide otaped the damag e to t he home and t he tape w as int ro duced i nto e vide n ce at ap pel lan t’ s t ri al. Se ig man tes ti fied th at t here w as cons ide ra ble damag e to the house and that it had si nce been repai re d. He further tes ti fied that a number

of personal i tems and ar ti cl es of cl othi ng had been d e stroy ed. Sei g man tes ti fied as to the repl acementv alu e of the it ems dest ro y ed. The tr ial cour t found appel lan t g uil ty of burg lar

y of a habi tati on by

co mmiss ion of a felony , c ri minal mis chi ef. Appel lan t c ontends that the ev ide nce is both l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o sus tai n the j udg ment of the tr ial cour t. W e dis ag re e and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. Standa rd of Rev iew W hen bot h l eg al and factu al suffici ency are att ack ed, we mustfirst address the is sue of leg al suffici ency . See C lew is v . St ate, 922 S.W .2d 1 26, 1 33 ( Tex .C ri m.App.3

1996)

. In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e rev iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa ctco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t

. Ja c k s o n v. Vi rg ini a, 44 3 U .S. 307, 319, 9 9 S .Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) ; R oss v . St ate, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In c onducti ng a lega l suf fici ency rev iew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit as a th irteen th juror, b u tr a t h er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or unsup por ted by more than a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 75 5 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). If the ev ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ien t, w e the n rev iew the factual suffici ency ch all eng e. Cl ew is , 922 S.W .2d at 133. W hen an appel lan t c hal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the ev i de nc e s up po rti ng h i s c on v i cti on , th e rev i ew i ng c ou rt mu s t de te r mi ne w he the r, cons ide ri ng al l the e v ide nce in a neutra l li g ht, the j ur y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty

beyond a re asona ble doubt . See W ats on v . State, 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). In pe rformin g a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e mu st gi v e de feren ce to t he fact finder ’s determi nati ons if suppor ted byev ide nce and may not order

a ne w tr ial si mply bec ause w e may

di sag re e w it h the v erdict. See id. at 417. As an a ppel lat e c our t, w e are no t justif ied in orde ring a new trial unle ss the re is some object iv e ba sis in the record demonst ra ti ng thatthe g re at weig ht an d preponderan ce of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the jury ’s v erdict. See id. Addition ally , an ap pellat e op inion a ddre ssing fa ctua l suf f icien cy must inc lud e a d is cus si on of the most impor tant ev ide nce that appel lan t c lai ms und er mines the jury ’s v erdict. Sim s v . Stat e, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3).F urther referenc e to the Tex as Penal C ode w il l be by “ § ____. ” 1 4 Ana ly sis App ellantw as con v icted o f burglary of a hab itation bycomm itting the felon y of fense of cr imi nal mis chi ef caus ing pec uni ar y damag e to re al or

perso nal proper

ty i n the amount of $1 ,500 or more but les s than $20,000

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §30.02( a) (3 ) (V er non 1999)

. The el ements of cr imi nal mis chi ef are that a person, w it hout the effect iv e c onsen t

1 of t he ow ner , damag es or dest ro y s the tang ibl e proper ty of t he ow ner . S e e § 2 8 .03. Criminal misch ief

is cl assif ied as a sta te jail felon y if th e a m o u n to f

d am age cause d is $1,500 or

more butl ess t h a n $20, 000. The amountof pecun iar y l oss i s c alc ula ted pursuantto secti on 28. 06. See § 28.06. The record reflect s that the ow ner , Se ig man, t est ified aboutthe damag e i nflicted o n his home an d tha t i t was done w it hout his effect iv e c onsen t. F urther , the record reflect s tha t dam age w as bo th to the struct ure, in th e form o f broke n w indo ws, w indo w screens, w all s a nd doors, other

damage to inter ior , in the form o f numerous bl ood s tai ns, mud s tai ns and deb ri s t hroug hout the h ome. In a d d it ion , t here w as tes ti mony aboutar

ti cl es of perso nal prop erty and clothing thathad bee n de stroyed. As to each of these items, there w as tes ti mony

aboutthe re pai r, cl eani ng , or repl acementco sts

. As to t he s tr uct ural damag e, the testi mony w as that Sei g man had re cei v ed an est imat e of $2,160 to compl ete the rep a irs. F or

the cl eani ng of the v ar iou s s tai ns and deb ri s l eft in the h ome, Se ig man tes ti fied that the charg e w as $1,612 to compl ete the cl eanup. The ev ide nce sh o ws that the articles of

person al prope rty

and clothi n g t h a twe re destroyed w as v alue d at “a little5

over $2,50 0." Seigman su bseque ntly testif ied that the tota l w as $6 ,70 0 an d, after he p aid his $1,0 00 dedu cti ble under hi s h omeow ner ’s pol icy , t he i nsurance company pai d “ about” $5,700. Al l of t his tes ti mony w as re cei v ed by the tr ial co urt w it hout obj ect ion

. If the v alu es tes ti fied to by

Sei g man are added , t he to tal i s $ 6,272. After Sei g man ’s p a y ment of the $1,000 deducti ble , t he record reflect s t hat t he i nsurance company pai d $5, 272. In ev alu ati ng the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce, w e must v iew the ev ide nce in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict. Ross, 133 S.W .3d at 62 0. Furthe r, w e giv e de feren ce to t he fact finder ’s reason abl e i nferenc es from th e b a sicf a cts t o the ul ti mate fact. Se e Hoo per v . Stat e, 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)

. W hen t he ev ide nce, as reflect ed ab o v e , i s c o mp a re d t o t h e e l e me n t s o f t h e o ffe n s e , i n t h e l i g h t mo s t fa v o ra b l e to the v erdict, it is app aren t tha t the S tate p rov ed beyond a rea sona ble dou bt tha t the pecu niary lo s s su f fe re d b y S e ig m a n wa s $ 1 , 5 0 0 o r m o re b u tle s s t h a n $ 2 0 , 0 0 0

. Ac c o rd in gl y, we canno t s ay

the tr ial co urt acted i rrati ona ll y , as the tr ier of fact, i n findi ng appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Ros s, 133 S. W .3d a t 620

. Hav ing found the ev ide nce leg all y su ff ic ien t, w e must nowaddres s the iss ue of the factual s u ffi c i e n cy o f t h e e v i d e n c e . C l e w i s , 9 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d a t 1 3 3

. W h i l e w e v iew the e vid e n c e wit h o u tt h e p ri s m o f in t h e li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic t , we m u s tst il l g ive deferenc e to the factfinder ’s dete rmi nati ons if su ppor ted b y ev ide nce. W ats on, 2 04 S.W .3d a t 417

. Our

rev iew of the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht compel s the concl usi on th at the t ri er of fact’ s d eci si on th at ap pel lan t w as g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt w as not a n ir ra ti onal one. I d. Therefore, t he ev ide nce w as factual ly su ff ic ien t.The appl ic abl e defini ti on for pecun iar y l oss i s “The amount of

pecuni ar

y loss under 2 thi s C hapter , i f the proper ty i s d amag ed, i s t he c ost of re pai ri ng or

rest or ing the damag ed prop erty w ithin a rea sona ble tim e after the d a m a ge o c c u rred .” T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28. 06(b ) ( Verno n 19 94). 6 Fi nal ly , we must

address the ev ide nce that appel lan t contend s shoul d under mine our confidence in the fact find er ’s dec is ion

. Si ms, 99 S. W .3d a t 603

. Appel lan t poi nts to the testim ony of

Seigman abo ut the rep airs to t he structu re. W hen a sked abo ut th e cost of the repai rs , he sta ted t hat t he es ti mate was $2,160. I t i s t his bi t of tes ti mony that appel lan t c ontends makes the ev ide nce ins uff ic ien t. In su p p o rtof thi s c ontent ion , appel lan t direct s the cour t to Sebree v . Stat e, 695 S.W .2d 303, 3 0 4 (T ex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1985, no p et.)

. The cour t in S e b re e det er mined that the t est imony of the st com plaina nt th at th e estim ate to repa ir the dam aged prop erty w as no t suf f icient evidence to prov e the co st of repai r, w hic h i s req uired by the ap p lic a b le prov is ion s o f the Pena l Cod e. Id. (referenc ing the re q uirements of § 28.06( b) ). Sect ion 28.06( b) sti ll cont ro ls the proof of pecuni ar

y loss for purpos es of the c ri minal mis chi ef stat ute. Se e § 28.06( b)

. If 2 Seigma n’s testim ony reg arding the e stimate d dam ages w as the only evidence o f pecu niary los s, appel lan t’ s reli ance on Seb re e woul d be bette r understo od. In Sebree, the e sti mate w as t he s um t ot al o f t he e v i de nc e reg ardi ng t he p ec un i ar y l os s s uffered by th e v i cti m. W hat t he c our

t s aid w as, “ W e furt her

hol d tha t an est imat e of damag e or an o pin ion on t he amount o f damage w it hout further ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o pro ve co sto f repai r . . . .” Sebree, 6 95 S. W .2d a t 305. In Sebree, the v icti m tes ti fied about an est imat e and that she had the rep airs done , butnever of fered a ny test imo ny tha t the rep airs h ad bee n pa id for. This i s dis ti ng uis habl e from the cas e before us. Here, Sei g man tes ti fied about an es ti mate for th e s tr uct ural repai rs , the actual cost of the cl ean up, and the repl acementcost of the7

prop erty dest roy ed. He then te sti f ie d t h a the pa id his ded uctible and the insu rance company

pai d “ about $5,700. ” The mathemat ic al addi ti on of the f igu re s t est ified to by Sei g man woul d req uire his ins urance company to pay $5,272 after

the deducti ble had been pai d. Ev en i f w e tak e appel lan t’ s cons tr uct ion of Sebree as cor re ct and apply it li terall y

to the fact s o f the c ase before us, w e sti ll hav e suffici ent ev ide nce before t he fact finder that the d ama ge to S e igm an w as g re ater than the $1,500 threshol d for cr imi nal mis chi ef as ind icted. Gi v ing due deferenc e to the factfinder ’s abi li ty to d ra w re a so nabl e i nferenc es from the ev ide nce, the fact finder w as ra ti onal i n dec idi ng thatSei g man had suffered pecun iar y l oss of at l east$1,5 00 or more butl ess than $20, 000. Con cl usi on Ha vin g o ve rr u le d a p p e l l a n t ’s is s u e s re ga rd in g t h e su f f ic ie n cy o f

t h e e vid e n c e , we aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.