1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________ ___ ____ NO. 09
- 15
- 00412
- CR

______________ ___ __
CEDRICK LAMAR WILSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________ __________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 102641

________________________________________ __________________________ OPINION A jury convicted Cedrick Lamar Wilson 1 of criminal trespass , a Class B misdemeanor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05(d)(1) (West Supp. 201 6 ). 2 Wilson appealed from the judgment, and i n four issues, he contends :

1 The trial court rendered judgment against “Cedric” Lamar Wilson, but the information , which charged Wilson with criminal trespass, and Wilson’s signature s, which are found on some of the documents that are in the record, indicate that the spelling of Wilson’s first name is “Cedrick.” In our Court, the2 1. His constitutional rights to receive procedural due process were violated by the City’s unwritten building

- use polic y , which allowed the City Manager to exercise his discretion about when to prohibit individuals from entering the Community Center

. 2. T he City’s unwritten building

- use policy could not be enforced against Wilson because it is too vague . 3. T he City ’s unwritten building

- use polic y did not have sufficient guidelines to prevent the City Manager from enforcing the policy in an arbitrary and irrational manner.
4. T he evidence before the jury in Wilson’s t rial was insufficient to support Wilson’s conviction f or criminal trespass

. Wilson ’s issues revolve around whether the City’s unwritten building

- use polic y provided the City Manager with valid authority to restrict Wilson from the Community Center

. I n his appeal, we note that Wilson does not challenge the constitutionality of section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code, the criminal

- trespass C lerk docketed the appeal using the name “Cedrick” because Wilson used that spelling in his notic e of appeal.

2 Although the Legislature amended the criminal

- trespass statute after the date Wilson is alleged to have trespassed at the Community Center, the changes to the criminal

- trespass statute are not pertinent to the arguments Wilson raise s in hi s appeal. Therefore, throughout the opinion, we cite the current version of the statute

.3 sta t ute on which hi s conviction is based. See Tex

. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (West Supp. 2016)

. A dditionally , Wilson also has not argue d he was selectively prosecuted in vi olation of his constitutional rights based on his statu s as a member of a protected class. While a clear and written building

- use polic y might have given Wilson guidelines regarding the conduct expected of him while using the facilities at the Community Center, Wilson’s remedy for his complaints about the City’s unwritten policy is a civil matter that Wilson should seek to remedy by lobbying City
Coun ci l. The elements of the criminal

- trespass statute do not include a requirement that the State p rove that the owner or occupier of the premises gave the defendant prior notice about the types of conduct that could result in the defendant’s losing his right to enter the premises where the trespass occurred. We further conclude that the evidence was su fficient to show that the City authorized the City Manager to exclude Wilson from the Community Center, and that the evidence before the jury in Wilson’s trial authorized the jury to return a verdict finding Wilson guilty of criminal trespass

. Background In an information, t he State accused Wilson of criminal trespass, alleging that Wilson intentionally or knowingly enter ed the Dayt on Community Center on4 July 8, 2015, without the effective consent of the Community Center after he was given notice that his entry to the Community Center was forbidden. In the charge that was submitted to the jury, the trial court instructed that “[a] person commits an offense [ of criminal trespass ] if he enters or remains on or in property or in a building of a nother without effective consent and he: (a) had notice that entry was forbidden; or (b) received notice to depart but failed to do so.” In relevant part, t he charge also stated that the term “notice” means “oral or written communications by the owner or s omeone with apparent authority to act for the owner[.]” Wilson did not object to the charge during the charge conference, and he also did not ask the trial court to submit any additional instructions to the jury

. When the jury returned its verdict , it foun d Wilson guilty and found that he should serve a sentence of ninety days in county jail

. The testimony from Wilson’s trial provides the relevant background for the complaints that Wilson raise s on appeal

. F our witnesses testified during the guilt

innocence phase of the trial: (1) David Douglas, the City M anager for the City of Dayton ; (2) Sherry Sikes, the director of the Jones Library, a library located in side the Dayton Community Center; (3) Officer Christ opher Boufford, the Dayton police officer who warned Wilson on the instructions of David Douglas that5 Wilson would no longer be allowed to return to the Dayton Community Center ; and , (4) Mya Wilson, Wilson’s sister, who testif ied in Wilson’s defense. The testimony in the trial established that on July 2, 2015, six days before Wilson was arrested for trespass , Officer Boufford gave Wilson an oral and written warning that he could not return to 801 South Cleveland, the Dayton Community
Center ’s address

. In his testimony, Officer Boufford indicated that on July 2, David Douglas asked him to issue the warning to Wilson because Douglas had observed Wilson “harassing some females that were using the facilities at the [Community]
Center.” When Officer Boufford located Wilson and gave him the written criminal

- trespass warning, he told Wilson that if he had any complaint s about the warning to discus s the m with the City Manager. On appeal, Wilson does not dispute the evidence showing that on July 2, Officer Boufford warned him as instructed by Douglas that he was not to return to the Community Center

. During the trial, Dayton’s City Manager, D avid Douglas, explained why he told Officer Boufford on July 2 to give Wilson a criminal

- trespass warning

. Ac cording to Douglas, he decided to ban Wilson from the property based on Wilson’s conduct at the Community Center on July 2, which he observed, and based on complaints that he had received about Wilson from people who worked at the Community Center. Accordi ng to Douglas, the City of Dayton and the Dayton6 Chamber of Commerce have employees who work at the Community Center. Douglas testified that various female s who work ed at the Community Center had complained to him about the way Wilson was acting at the Community Center

. Generally, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the complaints Douglas described concern conduct that the jury could reasonably have viewed as inconsistent with the Community Center’s purpose

. Among the complaints D ouglas received before July 2 were complaints that Wilson had a habit of star ing “for hours on end” at the femal e employees who worked at the Community Center

. Other complaints related to Wilson ’s conduct of sleeping on furniture in the lobby . According to Douglas , sleeping in the lobby was

“ not allowed

. ” Employees , who reported that Wilson had been found sleeping in the lobby, complained that on waking him, he had become confrontational. According to Douglas , the women working in the Communit y Center were afraid of Wilson because he was volatile, cu rsed , and in general, “creeped [the female employees at the Community Center] out[.]” A dditionally, Douglas expressed his view that Wilson had “gotten in the bad habit of stopping females” at the
Co mmunity Center, and Douglas testified that he was concerned that if Wilson scared someone when approach ing them, he m ight be shot

.7 Douglas also described observing Wilson’s conduct on July 2. Douglas testified that while at the Community Center on July 2, he saw Wilson approach and stop two females who were inside the Community Center

. A fter Douglas observed Wilson encounter these individuals, he then saw Wilson go outside the building, where he sat d own on a bench. A s hort time after Wilson sat on the bench, Wilson jump ed up and r a n toward a person Douglas saw jogging down a
street that ran in front of the Community Center

. Douglas thought that t he jogger saw Wilson approaching , and he observed the jogger change her path to avoid Wilson

. Wilson then returned to the Community Center, and Douglas indicated that he saw Wilson encounter two more females entering the Community Center. Douglas ’s testimony, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, allowed the jury to infer that Douglas was concerned that Wilson was selectively approaching females at the Community Center in a way that appeared to him, from the interaction s that he observed, to be unwanted. Douglas tes tified that after observing Wilson’s conduct at the Community Center on July 2, he went outside the building , where he told Wilson that “his behavior was unacceptable [,] ” “ to get off the City’s property, ” and “ that he was no longer welcome there [

. ] ” According to Douglas, when he confronted Wilson on July 2 , Wilson became belligerent

. Douglas described Wilson ’s behavior towards him that day as “a little unnerving , ”8 indicating that Wilson told him that “ he owned the Community Center , ” and that Douglas w orked for him. E ventually , Wilson left the City’s property

. After Wilson left, Douglas told the City’s employees at the Community Center to call the police
if Wilson return ed

. Douglas indicated that Wilson ’s ban from the Community
Center was permanent. Douglas also addressed why he had the authori ty to ban Wilson from the Community Center

. While Douglas agreed that the City had no written building

use polic y that applied to the Community Center, Dayton’s C ity Council had the right to decide who c ould ent er the building s the City owned

. Although Douglas agreed that City Council had not given him any specific direction s about behaviors that Council deemed to be unacceptable at the Community Center , he testified that he enforce d “ the rules [at the Community Center] in relationship to the safety of the people.” According to Douglas , as City Manager, he had the right to exercise his discretion about how individuals could act while on the City’s propert y to allow all of the people us ing the City’s propert y to us e it safe l y . Douglas testified that he ha d the right to protect others from Wilson based on his concerns for public safety

. Douglas only briefly addressed how his decision banning Wilson from the Community Center could have be en challenged at a City Council meeting

. And , the details regarding how Wilson might have challenged his decision to ban9 Wilson from the Community Center were not well developed in the trial

. For example, the City’s charter was not admitted at trial . Nonetheless, to th e extent the record contains evidence that addressed whether a right to challenge a city official’s decisions exists, Douglas testified that although no written policy existed outlining the procedure Wilson could have used to challenge his decision, his de cision could have been challenged by complaining about it to City Council or to the Mayor

. Wilson was arrested when he returned to the Community Center on July 8, 2015. Sherry Sikes, t he director of Dayton’s public library , called the police on July 8 whe n she saw Wilson at the Community Center

. Sikes also testified that people in the library were afraid of Wilson , and she explained why she thought that Wilson made people uncomfortable. According to Sikes , before Wilson was banned from the Community Center , he visited the library almost every day . Sikes explained that when Wilson came to the library, he generally s at at a computer that

was available for the public ’s use . Sikes indicated Wilso n typically sat at the computer count ing “ his fi ngers or something like that.” According to Sikes , she had observed Wilson over a long period and he was not normal. After the State rested, Wilson called his sister, Mya Wilson, who testified in his defense. According to Mya, Wilson is a disabled veteran , and he has been10 diagnosed with “[s]chizophrenia bipolar” disorder. Mya stated that before Wilson moved to Dayton, he had liv ed with her for several years . M ya testified that when Wilson lived with her, he took his medications , and she felt that he “was fine.”
Howeve r, Mya also indicated that Wilson ’s condition had deteriorated over the
years after his mental problems bec ame apparent , and she expressed the opinion that Wilson’s condition had bec o me worse around the time that he moved to Dayton . Mya explained that Wilson had been diagnosed at a state medical facility as having “ a bunch of different personalities.” According to Mya, after moving to
D ayton , Wilson had been living in a condemned home for approximately one year

. Mya stated that she was unaware whether W ilson, while living in Dayton, had continued to take the medications that his doctors had prescribed for him. Mya expressed concern that after Wilson moved , no one was available in Dayton to t ak e Wilson to a store where he could purchase his medications. Also, M ya stated that before Wilson moved, she attempted to convince him to see a doctor at the Veterans Administra tion , but he refused. Generally, Mya ’s testimony supports the State’s claim that Wilson was using the Community Center in ways that were in consistent with its purposes. For example, Mya testified that she understood why people would fear Wilson based on the way he interacted with others. Mya explained that in his encounters, Wilson11 like d to approach strangers and talk with them , but he did not attempt to talk “about normal stuff

. ” According to Mya , when Wilson approached others, he tended to attempt to talk to them about conspiracies, about owning property that

was not his, or about how people had taken things f r om him. Mya stated tha t Wilson would no longer talk to her, and she indicated that she last spoke with Wilson in May or June , 2014. Mya expressed the opinion that Wilson was generally well behaved , but if he became upset, or if he perceive d the pers on who he was talking to w as afraid, he could bec o me confrontational

. When asked if people were afraid of Wilson, Mya answered: “Yea h , I would be.” Mya testified that she feared that Wilson ’s condition had deteriorated to the point that her daughters, who lived with her, would not be safe if Wilson were to liv e with them

. Were Wilson’s Arguments Preserv ed? In his first three issues, Wilson asserts various constitutional complaints directed to the City of Dayton ’s unwritten policy allow ing the City Manager to exclude individuals from its property

. On appeal, the State argues that Wilson failed to properly preserve his complaints about the City’s unwritten building

- use policy for our review

. With respect to the City’s use of the Community Center, Wilson contends th at because the City had no written policy describing the types of conduct that12 would not be tolerated at the Community Center, he had no prior notice that the City would deem his conduct unacceptable and ban him fro m the Community
Center

. Wilson also argues that he had no ability under the City’s unwritten policy to challenge the City Manager’s decision, and he complains the City Manager , without written guidelines, was free to arbitrarily decide whether his conduct had been sufficiently in appropriate to result in a permanent ban

. Wilson contends that without clear written guidelines , the City’s building

- use policy could not be applied to him without violating his constitutional rights

. The record from Wilson’s tria l shows that when the State rested, Wilson moved for a directed verdict of acquittal , argu ing : Your Honor, the defense requests a directed verdict on the basis that the governmental policy governing who is and is not permitted on public property, who can be banned from public property, is unconstitutional and that it violates the due process

-- violates the due process clause because it is unconstitutionally vague. It also violates procedural due process, and because of the due process violation the gover nmental policy is void. The trial court overruled Wilson’s motion. 3 Because the record from the trial court shows that Wilson secured a ruling on the same arguments that he presents in his

3 Wilson made it clear to the trial court that he was not challenging the constitutionality of the criminal

- trespass statute. When Wilson finished the presentation of his arguments relating to his motion for directed verdict, the trial court said: “You’re wanting the Court to declare that the sta t ute that we’re having to deal with which permits [an arrest for trespass] unconstitutional?” Wilson’s13 appeal , he did not waive his right to our review of whether the c riminal

- trespass statute could be enforced given the complaints that he raised about the way the City applied its unwritten policy to him. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Do Wilson’s Constitutional Arguments about the City’s Building

- U se Policy Present Cognizable Claims as Related to His Conviction ?
In Jackson v. V i rgin i a , 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the United States Supreme Court instructs courts to resolve challenges raising insufficiency challenges by applying the standard of review identified in J ackson “with explicit reference to the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law.” Id . at 324
n.16. Under Texas law, an appeals court review s the sufficiency of the evidence by examining the elements of the offense , as the offens e is defined by State law, against the evidence that is admitted to the jury in the defendant’s trial. Fuller v.
State , 73 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). In Wilson ’s case, based on the elements of the criminal

- trespass statute, Wilson’s conviction rests on his conduct
in returning to the Community Center on July 8 after having been informed on July 2 of the City Manager’s decision that he could no longer be there. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05. The statute does not require the State to prove that the

attorney responded: “N o , sir. No, sir. Not at all.” Then , Wilson’s attorney explained that his complaints concerned “the City’s effective policy[.]”14 premises owner or the occupier g a ve the defendant prior notice of the reasons that it might use to insist that someone leave its property. Id

. As a city manager, Douglas possessed the authority to ma nage the City of Dayton’s property. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 25.029(a) (West 2008); Id . § 282.001(a) (West 2005). We take judicial notice that the City of Dayton is a home

rule city, and that it derives its power from article XI, section 5 of the Te xas Constitution. 4 Tex. Const. a rt

. XI, § 5; see Article 2, Section 2.01, Home Rule Charter for the City of Dayton, available at http://www. cityofdaytontx.com/ documentcenter/view/160 (last vi sited August 22, 201 6). The evidence shows that at the instruction of Dayton’s City Manager, a City of Dayton police officer gave Wilson a criminal

- trespass warning on July 2, 2015. While it was relevant whether the City Manager was authorized under Texas law or under the City’s policies to exclude Wilson from the Community Center on July 2, Wilson did not commit any criminal conduct in violat ion of state law based on Wilson’s conduct that Douglas described observ ing on July 2. In our opinion, Wilson’s complaints about Douglas’s d ecision ban ning him from the Community

4 We are authorized to take judicial notice of legislative fact s . Compare Emerson v. State , 880 S.W.2d 759, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“Judicial notice, both of adjudicative and legislative facts, may be taken on appeal.”), and Gonzales v. State , 723 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (noting that courts may take judicial notice that home

- rule city has been incorporated), with Tex. R. Evid. 201(a) (authorizing courts to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts).15 Center is a civil matter , and as such, Wilson could have pursued his complaints about Douglas’s decision to ban him from the Community Center in one of the regular meetings of Dayton City Council. See Article 3, Secti on 3.12, Home Rule Charter for the City of Dayton, available at http://www.cityofdaytontx.com/ documentcenter/view/160 (last visited August 22, 2016) . Or, if he could prove that Douglas’s decision banning him from the Community Center was either irrational or arbitrary, Wilson could have sought to enjoin the City from enforcing Douglas’s decision. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( permitting civil causes of action for claims alleging that a governmental actor has violated a n individual’s constitutional rights) ; Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D ., 980 F.2d 1514, 1528 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating that a violation of a person’s right to substantive due process “may require courts to void certain types of government action”); City of Elsa v. M.A.L

. , 226 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. 200 7) (noting that suits seeking equitable relief for violations of an individual’s constitutional rights are not prohibited); City of San Antonio v. TPLP Office Park Props. , 218 S.W.3d 60, 64

- 65 (Tex. 2007) (discussing requirement under substantive due proce ss that City’s exercise of the police power cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV (prohibiting the State from enforcing any law abridging privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States)

.16 The conduct that the c riminal

- trespass statute criminalize s is an i ndividual’s conduct of returning to another’s property after having been notified that his entry onto the property is forbidden. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (a)(1). Wilson was convicted for return ing to the Com munity Center on July 8

. When focused on the elements of the criminal

- trespass statute , the statute does not require the State to prove that the defendant was given prior notice of the types of conduct that might lead the owner or occupier of the premises to ban a person from its premises. See id. , § 30.05. Instead, the statute requires the State to pro ve that the defendant was warned by someone with the authority to do so that he could no longer enter the owner’s property , a standard that is easily unders tood by ordinary person s . 5 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (a)(1)

.

5 Even if we were to consider Wilson’s complaint s that the City’s policy allowed no right to appeal, and that t he City failed to notif y him about the procedures he could have followed to complain about Douglas’s decision banning him from the Community Center , Wilson failed to carr y his burden to prove that he had no rights of appeal

. Wilson failed to put into evidence the City Chart er, and without it, he failed to carry his burden of proving that the procedures available to him under the City of Dayton’s Charter provide individuals like Wilson to challenge the decision s of a city official like Douglas . Additionally, the City was not required to advise Wilson regarding the procedures that he might have followed to challenge Douglas’s decision ban ning him from the Community Center, as the evidence shows that Wilson knew that Douglas was the person who caused the criminal

- trespass warning to issue. See City of W. Covina v. Perkins , 525 U.S. 234, 240

- 43 (1999) (rejecting claim that a citizen was entitled to individualized notice from the City regarding the state law remedies ava ilable to him to have the police return his property, which had been seized in a search).17 We conclude that an adequate civil remedy exists for the types of complaints that Wilson raised in his trial concerning Douglas’s decision to permanently ban him from the Community Center. Furthermore, we conclude that the State was not required to prove that Wilson had actual or constructive notice of its building

- use policies to prove that he committed a trespass

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (setting forth the substantive elements of criminal trespass)

. Both at trial and in his appeal, Wilson relies heavily on the Texarkana Court of Appeals ’ decision in Anthony v. State , 209 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, no pet.) , to support his position that the trial court erred in denying h is motion for directed verdict. In Anthony , the City of Henderson had an unwritten policy that allowed it s police officers to ban people from the City’s parks at the officers’ discretion. Id . at 301. In Anthony , our sister court held that the City of Hende rson’s unwritten policy regarding the use of its parks was unconstitutional on the basis that the policy violated Anthony’s rights to procedural due process and because it was unconstitutionally vague. Id . at 310

- 11. The court in Anthony concluded that the officer who decided to exclude Anthony from the park was not properly authorized to do so, despite testimony that the officer had such authority

. Id . at 310. T he Texarkana Court of Appeals reversed Anthony’s conviction by18 finding the evidence insufficient to support the effective

- consent element required for the offense of criminal trespass. Id . at 310. While we agree that a governmental entity’s building

- use policy might be relevant to deciding whether a governmental official had the authority to exclu de others from a governmental building, the State was not required to prove that Wilson had actual or constructive notice of what behaviors would result in a demand that he leave the City’s property

. To the extent that Anthony implies that constructive notic e of a government al entity’s building

- use polic y is an element of the offense of criminal

- trespass, we disagree. Under t he Constitution , governmental entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties, so long as the entity’s polic i es are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination. In Adderl e y v. Florida , which concerned a defendant’s challenge to the validity of Florida’s trespass statute, the United States Supreme Court recognized: “The United States Constitution does not forbid a State to control the use of its own property for its own lawful nondiscri minatory purpose.” 385 U.S. 39, 48 (1966). Moreover, because one of the required elements of proving criminal trespass requires the State to prove that the entity in possession of the property warned the defendant that he could not return to the property , the statute does not require the defendant to speculat e about what19 aspect of his conduct the statute proscribe s . See Lanzetta v. New Jersey , 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939). The evidence in Wilson’s case demonstrated that Douglas excluded Wilson from the Communi ty Center because Wilson was using the Community Center in a manner that Douglas reasonably viewed as being inconsistent with the building’s legitimate public purpose. The evidence also shows that Douglas, as the City Manager, had a superior right as compa red to Wilson to control the property at issue

. In his brief, Wilson has not claimed that he had a constitutional right to use the Community Center in any way he chose

. Additionally , the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably conclude that Wilson’s use of the property on July 2 was inconsistent with the facility’s purpose

. We conclude that the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that Douglas, acting as Dayton’s City Manager, had the right to exclude Wilson from the Community Center

. See Adderl e y , 385 U.S. at 47

. (“The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to wh ich it is lawfully dedicated.”); s ee also Ray v. State , No. 03

- 14

- 00538

- CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3213 , *3 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 30, 2016 , no pet.) (not designated for publication) (explaining that the court would not consider the defendant’s arguments about the constitutionality of a hospital’s lack of a written20 building

- use policy in evaluating whether the defendant’s conviction for criminal trespass should be affirmed). W e overrule issues one , two, and three

. Is the Evidence Sufficien t to Support Wilson’s Conviction?
In issue four , Wilson argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for criminal trespass . According to Wilson, the evidence failed to sufficiently establish that Douglas had the authority to exclude him from the Community Center

. Additionally, Wilson argues the evidence before the jury was insufficient to show that the Ci ty , as of July 8, had effectively withdrawn his right to use the Community Center

. In a review of a complaint challenging the sufficiency of the evidence , we assess all of the evidence admitted in a defendant’s trial in the light that most favor s the verdict to determin e whether the evidence , beyond reasonable doubt, authorized a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the crime with which he was charged

. Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318

- 19; see also Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 894

- 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ; Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In reviewing the evidence, t he factfinder , not the appeals court, is the ultimate authority on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight that should be given their testimony

. Penagraph v. State , 623 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). As the factfinder, a jury is given the responsibility to21 fairly resolv e any conflict s that may exist in the testimony, to weigh the evidence admitted during trial , and to draw reasonable inferences from the facts to determin e whether the defendant committ ed the crime with which the defendant was charged

. See Hooper , 214 S.W.3d at 13. If the evidence before the jury raises inferences that are in conflict , we presume the jury resolved those conflicts in a manner that is consistent with its verdict

. See Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Although we defer to the jury’s resolution of the facts, our review is to determine whether the jury’s inferences from the facts th at were before it were

‘“ reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. ’” Id . (quoting Hooper , 214 S.W.3d at 16

- 17). Generally , in a sufficiency review , the appeals court is required
to uphold the jury’s verdict “ unless a reasonable juror must have had a reasonable doubt as to at least one of the elements of the offense. ” Runningwolf v. State , 360 S.W.3d 490, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). A person commits the offense of crim inal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the property of another without effective consent and after receiving notice that his entry onto the property was forbidden. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05(a)(1); Salazar v. State , 284 S.W.3d 874, 876 (Tex. Crim . App. 2009). In a case involving public grounds, the State satisfies the burden of the “of another”22 element of the criminal

- trespass statute by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant has a greater right of possession of the property than does the accused. See Vanderburg v. State , 874 S.W.2d 683, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that the State may establish ownership in a trespass case by proving that the complainant had a greater right of possession of the property than the defendant); Arnold v. State , 867 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (same). The evidence before the jury in Wilson’s case show s that the Community
Center was built and managed by the City of Dayton, and that the City Manager was in charge of the property . Based on the evidence showing that Douglas was the
C ity M anager and that the Community Center was a facility controlled by the City, the jury was authorized to conclude that Douglas had the right to prohibit Wilson from being on the City’s property at th e address where the Community Center is located

. See Bader v. State , 15 S.W.3d 599, 6 08 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, pet. ref ’ d) (concluding that campus police for the University of Texas , as compared to the defendant, had a greater right to the possession of t he campus). Wilson ’s sufficiency challenge focuses primarily on the State’s burden to show that he returned to the Community Center without the City of Dayton’s “effective consent.” In presenting his argument, Wilson suggests that the City’s unwritten poli cy pertaining to the use of the Community Center was23 un const itution al

. However, w e have already explained that the City’s unwritten building

- use polic y concerns Wilson’s conduct on July 2 , and explained why Douglas was authorized as Dayton’s City Manager to exclude Wilson from the Community Center. The evidence also demonstrates that on July 2, Officer Boufford informed Wilson that he could no longer return to the Community
Center

. Wilson does not dispute that he returned to the Community Center on July
8. We conclude that ample evidence supports each element required to prove that Wilson was guilty of criminal trespass. W e overrule Wilson’s fourth issue. Conclusion Having overruled Wilson’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED

.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on June 3, 2016 Opinion Delivered October 19 , 2016 P ublish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.1 DISSENTING OPINION I respectfully dissent. The majority seems to conclude that s ection 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code is constitutional because an adequate civil remedy for its potential abuse exists in this case , and decides that , for this reason, Wilson’s conviction should be affirmed. But Wilson does not attack the constitutionality of section 30.05 of the Penal Code. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.05 (West Supp. 2016). His complaint centers on the unwritten policy of the C ity of Dayton , which ostensibly gave the City Manager unfettered authority to ban him from the City of Dayton’s property

. In Anthony v. State , 209 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, no pet.) , the Texarkana Court of Appeals carefully examined a conviction for criminal trespass with facts nearly identical to those of this case. In Anthony , the city had an unwritten policy that delegated to its police officers the authority to ban people
fr om public parks at their discretion. Anthony , 209 S.W.3d at 301. After a police sergeant gave Anthony notice not to return to a city park, Anthony returned to the park and was arrested for criminal trespass. Id

. On appeal, Anthony argued, among other t hings, that the city’s policy violated the Due Process Clause and that the

ev idence was legally insufficient to support his conviction

. Id

.2 As part of his Due Process argument, Anthony contended that the unwritten policy was inherently vague and permitted selective law enforcement. Id . at 306. As the Anthony court noted, to satisf y due

- process requirements, a statute or regulation “must provide adequate notice of the required or prohibited conduct.” Id . The regulation need not be mathematically precise, but it “must be defined with ‘sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not permit arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Id . (quoting State v. Holcombe , 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). After noting that the unwritten policy was not premised on a violation of specific rules , d elegated complete discretion to the police officer without providing guidelines for the exercise of that discretion, and presented a “ substantial risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement[,]” the Anthony court concl uded that the unwritten policy wa s unconstitutionally vague. Id

. I find the reasoning in Anthony persuasive, and I would conclude that there is no meaningful distinction between the facts of Anthony and those of this case. Specifically, I would conclude th at t he fact that Anthony involved discretion vested in the police , while the case at bar involves discretion vested in the City Manager , is a distinction without merit. Douglas intended to ban Wilson permanently from the Dayton Community Center (DCC) despi te the lack of any written policies3 governing what types of behavior are unacceptable at DCC. Like the police officers in Anthony , Douglas, in his capacity as City Manager, has been given discretion to protect the safety of Dayton’s citizens, but there are no guidelines in place to govern Douglas’s exercise of his discretion. A reasonable person would not have fair warning of what type of conduct would result in banishment from the property, and the policy present s a substantial risk of arbitrary and selective enforcement. See id . I believe that the City of Dayton’s unwritten policy vesting unfettered discretion in the City Manager regarding who may be on the City’s public premises is unconstitutionally vague. See id

. I would rever se the conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Dissent Delivered October 19 , 2016