### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00372-CR

Damacio Renter

ia, Appel lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147T H DISTRICT CO URT NO. 0992 095, HONOR

ABLE WILF ORD F

LOWERS, JUD GE PR

ESIDING

A jury co nv ic t ed Dam

aci o Renteria of b

urglary of a habitation. After fi ndi ng an enhanc ement parag

raph to be true, th

e j ury assess ed puni shm

ent at t we nt y yea r s in p r iso n. Re nt er ia contends on appeal

that, although the evi

dence sh ows he co mmit t ed t r es pa ss , it is legally i nsufficient to s h ow th

at h e a ttem pte d to c om

m i t or di d c om

m i t th ef t. We will affirm the judgment. Kevi nWeathe rill returned fr om a wee

kend in Houston to find

his home ransacked and many be longings taken. Sometime over the weekend, a window in the bedroom had been broken. There was blood inside the broken window and throughout the house. A soup can was
onthe floor and a vase was misplac ed on the nearby bed. Mud was tr acked thr oughout t he house ina way that

indicate d many peo

ple were in the house over the weekend. Items missing from the house i nc l uded an ass aul t rif l e, se veral round s of

am m uni tion f or the ri f l e, a s hot gun, a r ifl

e, dive kni ves, je wel ry (i ncl udin g a rin g, a pearl n

eckl ace, a di am

ond tenni s bracel

et, and trinket j ew elr y

), guit ar s, a camer a, a video -c asse t t e r eco rd er , a nd bo t t les o f wine and rum (cons um ed on prem i ses ).2

The t elevision a ppe ar ed t o ha ve bee n mo ved , b ut aba ndo ned . O t her valu able it ems le ft in the house i nc l uded a com puter, ar t work, sev

eral wetsu i ts, an d a com pact-di sc p l ay er. We at he r ill

testifi ed that he persuaded poli

ce to co n du ct a

cr ime-sce ne invest igat ion. He sa id t ha t t he o ffice r s w ho init ially r es po nd ed t o ld h im t he y did no t no r mally l ook f or f i n gerp ri n ts in su ch ca se s, so he ca lled 91 1 a ga in a nd r eq ue st ed t ha t so meo ne co me out and t ake fingerp rint s. T he burglary un

it f ound several

fi ngerpri nts and pal

m pri nts i n the h ouse. We at he r ill

sa id that he becam

e suspi ci ous of Renteri a two days a fte r d isco ver ing t he
r o bbe ry. He said that, as he was movi ng out of the h ouse, Renteria was standing outside an adjacent housing project and ap

parently taunt

ing him. Weathe

rill called police, who ma tche d Ren

teria’s palm prints to those found on the interior of the broken bedr oom window and on the vase in the bedroom. None of t

he oth er pr ints in the house matched Renteria’s prints, and police did not
co mp are the non-matching prints to those of ot her suspect s. Renteria ha d a cut on h

is ches t, whichhe ascribed to an attempt to remove a tattoo with a razor blade. A witness testified that the cut could have been madeby barbed wir e; Weatherill’s house was surr ounded by a fence topped by barbed wir e.

A defense witness who lived in the adjacent hous ing project testifie d that, in April 1999, a man other than Renteria came to his apartment ar ound three in the morning asking if he wanted to buy some goods stolen from the house. The items offered included

an ass ault

weapon, some fur nitur e, some jewelr y, and some cloth es.

Wh en revi ewi ng the l egal suf fi ci ency of the ev i de nc e, w e l

ook at all t he ev ide nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he pr o se cu t io n a nd as k w he t he ran y ra t io na l t r ier o f fac t co uld have fou nd t he ess en tia l elem en ts of th e cri me b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. See Jac kson v . Virgini a , 4 4 3 U.S.1 Tho ugh We at her ill was re nt ing t he ho use , he is an “o wner ” bec aus e he had a righ t to pos se ss i on supe ri or to Renteri

a. SeeTex . Penal

Code A nn . § 1.07( a)(35) (A) (W

est 199 4). 3 307, 318-19 (19 79) ; Sta ley v. State , 8 87 S .W. 2d 8 85, 888 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 4) . Any in consi stenci es i

n th e ev i den ce

sh oul d b e r es ol v ed i n f av or of th e v erdi ct. See Moreno v. State , 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim . App . 198 8). Thi s stan da rd of rev i ew i s th e s am e f orbot h dire ct and ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce. See Gr

een v. Stat

e , 840 S.W .2d 394 , 401 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1992 ). The di stri ct courtchar ged t he jur y that a pe rso n co mmi t s an o ffense if, wit hou t t he ef f ec ti ve con sent of

th e ow n er , the p er son

en ter s a h ab i tati on an d c om m i ts o r a ttem pts to co m m i t a th ef t. SeeTe x. P enal Co de Ann. § 30.02( a)(3) (West Su pp . 20 01 ). R

en ter i a c on ce de s th

at h i s pri n ts sh owt ha t he wa s ins ide t he ho us e. T he dir ec t ev ide nc e is t ha t Re nt er ia did no t have t he con sent of We at he r ill, t he ow ner , t o e nt er t he house and remove items. 1 None of the stolen item s, however, was recovered, muc

h less tie d to Renteri a. Th e on l y ev i de nc e re ga

rdi ng the di sp osi ti on of the i tems af ter the burglary was the report ed att empt by a man ot her than Renteria to sell some of the items. Re nt er ia ar gu es t ha t t he lac k o f ev ide nc e t ying him to th e i tem s or h i s pre se n ce to t he sp ec ific t ime o f t he t he ft r en de r s t he ev ide nc e le ga lly i ns uf f i ci en t to support hi s con

vi cti on. He poi n ts t o t he fact thatma

ny people en

tered t he h

ouse durin

g the burglary we ekend. He rei terat es his trial argum ent that t he “

burglary” was an i

nsuran ce scam , arguin g that “[t]he idea that a succe s sfu l busi nessma n wo uld mo ve int o a 6 00 sq . ft
. ho us e lo ca t ed ne xt t o t he cr ime-ridden Me adowb

rook Ho using Pr o

jec t an d k ee p t ho us an ds o f do llar s w o r t h o f it ems in t ha t sma ll hous e i s ri

di cul ous.”He notes th at a televi sion an

d other i tem s “ va l uab l e to a com

mon b urgl ar” w ere l ef t in the h ouse. Viewing t he evide nce in t he light mo st favo ra ble to t he ver dict , w e co nclude t hat t he j ury re aso nably cou ld have d isbelieved Re nt er ia’s as ser t ion t hat he wa s in t he ho us e b ut did not steal4

oratte m pt to steal any

of Wea theril l’ s m is si ng property. The court o f cri mi nal appeal s uphel

d a
m urder c onv

i cti on b ase d on two f

i nge rpri nts i ns i de a h ouse. See Phelps

v. State , 594 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). The court wrot e that appellant’s fingerp rint s we re fou nd o n a door ja mb of the bedroom cl

oset ap pr o ximat ely

si x f eet from wh ere the i ntr ude r wa s s een c

rouchi ng . The door through whi

ch t he int rud er en t er ed t he be dr o o m wa s lo ca t ed ap pr o ximat ely three feet to t he r ight of the doorj am b w here app el

l an t’s f i nge rpri nts w ere f oun d. Th e b ed room dresser f rom which t he in

truder t ook a camera was l ocated appro xi

ma tely seven feet to the lef t o f thi s doo rjam

b. The most di

rect route be twe en the be droom door and t he be droom dr es se r w oul d h av e ta ken t he int ru der right by the be dr oo m close t . T he deceased ’s wi

f e te sti f i ed th at she had

not given

appella nt permission to enter her home
. There was n

o evi den c e t hat app ellant ha d bee n on t he pr emises pr ior t o t he off ense, or that t he prem

is es previously

had been burglarize d. These ci

rcumstances n eg ate an y rea son ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty tha t ap pe l l an t l ef t hi s f i ng erpri nts pri ort o t he night of the of f en se. Id. at 436 (c i

tations om

i tted). In this cas e, t he o nly evidence w as t hat Rent er ia did no t have perm i ssi on to be i n the house a

t any tim e. His pa lm print w as fo und on th e b roke n w i nd ow a nd on
a vase misplaced near by. Blo od was fou nd in the house (thoughnot m

atc he d or d

i sti ng ui sh ed f rom Renter ia’sblo o d) ; R en t er ia h ad a c ut o n his chest thatcould ha ve com e f rom e i ther the b arb ed wi

re
surroun di ng th e house or th e b roken

wi ndow gl ass . Man

y i tem s we re m i ssi ng f rom th e house. The ju r y r ea son

ab l y cou l d di sreg ard ev i den ce

an d i n f er en ce s th at R en ter i a a ss er ts sho uld have l ed

to hi s acqui

tt al . The j ury coul

d bel ie ve that o t he r s p ar t icip at ed in t he t he ft an d s t ill
conc l ude that Ren

teri a parti ci pated i n the the f t or attemp ted the f

t. The j ury

could accept

evi dence that Weatheri ll

move d to a “b ad

ne i gh bor hood ,” d i d n ot f i t the de mogra ph i csof the nei ghborhood,
was som ewhat caval ie r about storing hi

s bel ongin gs, and purchased a replacem ent-val ue i nsuran ce policy wh ich inc r ea se d h is r ec o ve r y o n his po st - t he ft insu r an ce cla im, a nd st ill fi nd t ha t he di d n ot
co nsent t o R ent er ia ta king his prope rty. T here i s, howev er, no evi

dence that Wea

theril l c onspi red5

t o co mmit o rco ns en t ed t o t he t he ft in o r de rt o liqui da t e p er so na l p r o pe r t y. The j ury could i nstead have viewed Wea

theril l’ s m ove to a smal

l, i nex pensi ve h ouse as a c ost -savi

ng m easure. Vi ewed fav o r ab ly to th e v erdi ct, Weather il

l’s insiste nce o n a mor e ext ensive invest igat ion invo lving dust ing f orf i n gerp ri n ts a n d th e b urgl ar s’ ab an don men t of th e te l ev i si on ru n cou n ter to his involvement in the
r o bbe ry. T he jur y co uld concl ude that a man

in volv ed i n a scam wou l d pr ef er m i ni mal i nv es ti ga ti on and max i mal “ l oss ” f rom th e th ef t; deman di n g f i n gerp ri n ts and l ea vi ng i tem s v al ua bl e to a “ com mon bur gl ar”seem

antithe tical to such pref

erences. A

bsen t consent to remo val o f t he pr op er t y, t he removal is the ft; mo vingto a “b ad nei ghborhood” an

d b uy i n g a n i n su ra n ce pol i cy doe s n ot co n sti tute consent to be the victim

of cri me . Though t he jur y co uld ha ve ac qu it t ed Re nt er ia o f bu r gla ry, it did not . I t hear d all t he evi dence (includ ing alleged incons iste ncies in W ea t he r ill ’s tes ti mony ) an d c onv i cte d Ren teri a of bu r gl ar y. Vie win g t he ev ide nc e mo st fav o r ab ly t o t he ve r dic t , we co nc lud e t ha t a r at io na l jur y co uld have fou nd t he esse nt ial elements of t he cr ime beyond a re aso nable do ubt . We ove rr ule t he so le po int of er ror a n d a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t.

Mack Ki

dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: August 9, 20016

Do No t Publis

h