### NUM BER 13-06- 348- CR 

## 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
FR A NC ISCO SER RA

TA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION 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 B en av ide s Appel lan t, Franci sc o Ser ra ta, w as found g uil ty by a j ur y of burglary

of habi tati on. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. § 30. 02 (V er non Supp. 2007) ( sec ond- deg re e felony ). H e pl eaded “t ru e” to tw o enhan cement par ag ra phs all eg ing thathe h ad been co nv ic ted o n tw o prev iou s occasio ns for bur gl a ry o f a hab itation . Serrata was senten ced to thirty -f iv e y ears’ impr is onment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nst it uti onal D iv is ion

.2

By tw o i ss ues, Ser ra ta c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t to s ust ain the jur

y ’s v er dic t of g uil t. W e aff ir m.

I. B A CKGRO UND Rub y Li ser io tes ti fied th at he r and her co mmon la w

hus band, Aug ust ine Lara, Jr ., li ve d wit h h e r i n -l a ws , C a n d i d a a n d A u gu s t in e L a ra , S r. , in Ma t h is , S a n P a t ri c io Co u n t y,
w hil e the ir

home w as bei ng fix ed. Theyhav e tw o c hil dr en. Al so li v ing i n the home w as her si ste r- in- law , F . L. , w ho w as 14 y ears o ld at t he ti me. Ruby’s husb and w as an a irplane m echa nic, but h e also played in a ban d led by his uncle , Joe La ra. Francisco Serrata had began singing w ith the ban d for a coup le of mon ths. The band pr act ic ed i n the g ar ag e at the L ar as’ home. On F ebr uar

y 8, 2005, Rub y

f urther testi fied that w as not w or ki ng that day

. She w as home w hen her

hus band c ame home for l unch. After l unch, sh e too k h im t o w or k s o s he coul d k eep t he v ehi cl e. She w as g one for 15 minute s. W hen s he l eft the h ome, onl y F .L.
w as hom e bec ause she w as si ck and did not g o to sc hool

. The home w as left un loc ked. R ub y d i d no t l ea v e th e ho me a g ai n un ti l s he l eftt o g o pi c ku p he r s on a r ou nd 3 :0 0 p. m. That time, s h e w a s g o n e fo r a b o u ttw o h o u rs
. F

. L

. w a s s t i l l t h e o n l y p e rs o n h o me a tthe ti me, butthi s t ime, l ock ed th e door bec ause she knew

sh e w oul d be g one for a w hil e. Rub y ke pt he r jew elr

y i n a j ew elr

y box in the mi ddl e c los et i n the room sh e and her husb and w ere occu pying . She w ent to the jew elry box tha t mo rning to put on her jew elry b u t d e ci ded notto w ear any thatday

. Later

thatni g ht, around mi dni g ht, she noti ced that her j ew elr y w as mis si ng , i ncl udi ng her w eddi ng se t, a nec kl ace, three r ing s, a l ink bracel et, and tw o w atc hes. Rub y beli ev ed that the jew elr y w as sto len dur ing the 15 mi nute int er v al
w hen she too k her husb and at w ork.3

Rub y spok e to her mother-i n- law , Fel ic it a, and her other si ste r-in -law , Amy Lara. Lar a tes ti fied th at s he had dr iven by her parents ’ house around t he l unch hour w hil e s he
w as on her

w ay to t h e doc tor ’s off ic e. She no ti ced a w hit e Li ncol n dr iv ing throug h the ci rc ula r dr iv ew ay
. Ser ra ta w as dr iv ing the v ehi cl e, an d he had a pass eng er
. She coul d not
see the p ass eng er , butsh e tol d the pol ic e at the ti me that she thoug ht it w as a male. Sh e knew Ser ra ta be caus e s he had seen hi m at her par ents ’ home helpi ng out w it h the band. Rub y and her h u sb and spent a month cont inu ousl y cal li ng paw n shops about the jew elry until the y

locate d he r bridal set, tw o w atch es, an d tw o rin gs a t a n E Z P awn i n Beev il le, Tex as. Onc e they found the j ew elr y , t hey ca ll ed th e Beev il le pol ic e depar tment. Theynev er

found the neck lac e, t he ot her r ing , or the li nk br acel et. Dorale s S ala z ar

tes ti fied th at she li v es in Rob sto w n w it h her four chi ldren and a g ra nddaug hter

. She has know n Ser ra ta s inc e they w er e c hil dr en, o r approx imat ely 25 y ears. In Febr uar

y 2005, theyw er e nei g hbors, and he ask ed her to bor ro w

her v ehi cl e, a 1993 w hit e Linco ln Tow n Car

. He sai d he needed to f il l out paper w or k for a job in H oust on,
so he bor ro w ed th e c ar i n the mor nin g and broug ht i t bac k i n the after noon. W hen he re tur ned t he c ar , he ask ed for another fav or
. He tol d Sa la zar that he needed money

to g et to Houst on f or

the job , and he had some jew elr y for h is ex -g ir lfri end tha t he wanted to p a wn . Salazar told him she could no t help him be cause her driv er’s li cens e w as ex pired. He tol d her thathe k new

of a paw n s hop t hat w oul d pur chase the jew elr y ev en w it h an ex pired dr iv er ’s l ic ense. Sa laz ar tes ti fied that she ag re ed to the fav or and t hat s he w oul d k eep t he rec e ip t s o s he c oul d tak e outthe jew elr y for h im w hen he
as k e d

. Th e y w e n t t o a n E Z P a w n i n B e e v i l l e w h e r e s h e p a w n e d j e w e l r y fo r h u ndr eds of d o ll a rs
. Sh e d o e s n o tre m e m b e r t h e je we lry, o t h e r t h a n t h a tt h e re we re ri n gs
. Sh e ga ve the mone y

to Ser ra ta an d kept the ti ck et. Nei ther Rub y nor Amy kn ow Sal az ar
. Theynev er4

saw Ser ra ta w it h a g ir l or

g ir lfri end. Stev e H utc hin s, an i nv est ig ator w it h the San Patr ic io Cou nty Sher iff’s D epar

tment, tes t i fi e d t h a t h e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e b u rg l a r y a t t h e L a r a s ’ h o me
. O n M a r c h 2 , 2 005, he
re cei v ed a cal l from Officer Trev ino w it h the B ee C ounty Pol ic e D epar

tment. O ff ic er

Trev ino
re por ted t hat t he v ic ti m had c ontac ted h im, sta ti ng thatsh e had loc ated her j ew elr y at a paw n s hop i n Beev il le. The jew elr y had been paw ned by Sal az ar , and a “h old ” had bee n place d on the jew elry

. Hu tchins the n cont acte d Sala z ar, w ho ca me into the sherif f ’s of f ice and g av e her

st atement. H e a lso obta ine d the st atement from Amy thatsh e had seen Sal az ar ’s v ehi cl e on the d ay i n q uest ion bei ng dr iv en by Ser ra ta. S e rr a t a t e s t if ie d a tt ri a l. He f ir s t s t a t e d t h a th e h a d b e e n p re vio u s ly c o n vic t e d o f two feloni es: burg lar

y of a habi tati on and forg er

y . On cross -e x aminat ion , how ev er , he re v eal ed tha t he ha d served time f or at least eig ht sep arate convictions. He stated he w as on parole for hi s l astco nv ic ti on. He is al so tes ti fied th at he i s a r ecov er ing dr ug addi ct. Ser ra ta s tated thathe h as know n Salaz ar f or m any y ears, and i n F ebr uar

y 2005, he
w as da ting her. He w as a m em ber of the Joe Lara and “Exprecion” ban d, and t hey w ould pr act ic e a t the L ar a r esi dence i n the g ar ag e. Sal az ar w oul d g o w it h Ser ra ta t o band pr act ic e and to h a n g o u t. H e deni ed th at he ev er bor ro w ed her

v ehi cl e to g o fil l out paper w or k for a j ob. He cl aimed he has nev er g one int o the Lar as’ house othe r than one ti me to see Rub y ’s new baby

. He sta ted h e does not know Amy L a ra
. He deni ed burg lar iz ing the home on Febr uar y 8, 2005. On M ay 25, 2006, Ser ra ta w as found g uil ty by a jur y of bu rg lar

y of a habi tati on. Id. H e p l e aded “tr ue ” t o tw o e n h a n c e me n t s fo r tw o p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s o f b u rg l a r y o f a habi tati on. He w as sent enced bythe cour t to thir ty -fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonmenti n the Tex asSer r at a’ s t r i al coun sel was G r ant Jone s, and he f i l ed a n Ander s bri ef w i t h t hi s C ou rt. S ee Ande r s v. 1 C ali f or nia, 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. S e r r a ta f ile d a p r o s e b r ie fa r g u in g in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o fc o u n s e l. O n A pr i l 3, 2007, t hi s C our t abat ed and or der ed t hat t he appoi nt m ent ofnew a ppel l at e cou nsel

. O n Apr i l 19, 2007, t he t r i al cour t app oi nt ed Davi d St i t h. T hi s case was r ei nst at ed and o n M ay 19, 200 7, D av i d St i t h f i l ed b rie f w i th th i s C o u rt.
5 Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nst it uti onal D iv is ion

. This appeal ens ued. 1 II. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY Serrrata argues tha t the e v iden ce w as legally a nd factu ally

insuf f icient to supp ort his
c o n vic t io n
. T o a s s e s s wh e t h e r t h e e vid e n c e s u p p o rt in g a ve rd ic tis le ga ll y su f f ic ie n t , we
cons ide r all the ev ide nce in the record i n the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e t o t h e jur y v er dic t and deter mine w hether

a rati onal j ur

y co uld hav e f ound the def endant g uil ty of all the ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt. Ho o p er v. Sta te , 21 4 S. W .3 d 9, 1 3 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ); Swear ing en v. State , 101 S. W .3d 8 9, 95 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) . “I n rev iew ing the suffici ency of the e v ide nce,
w e sho uld loo k a t ‘events occurring b efore, during a nd af ter the comm ission of

the of fense and may re ly on act ion s of t he defendant w hic h show an understa ndi ng an d co mmon design to do the pro hibite d act. ’” Hooper , 2 1 4 S. W .3 d at13 (quo ti n g Cor dova v. State , 698 S.W .2d 1 07, 1 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) ). W hil e eac h fact m a y n o t p oin t di re ctl y and inde pen den tly

to the app ellant ’s g uilt, w e ma y af f irm “as long as the cum ulative force of a ll the incriminat ing ci rcumst ance s is suff icient to supp ort the conviction.” Id. Ci rc umstan ti al
ev ide nce alo ne may

be e noug h to est abl is h g uil t. Id. In co n tr a st , t h re e ba sic grou n d rul e s g u i d e o u r in qui ry w h e n co n d u ct in g a factual -s uff ic ien cy

anal y si s. Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S .W .3d 6 99, 7 04 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8). “F irst, the cour

t of appeal s mus t be cog niz ant o f the fact that a j ur y has al re ady

pas sed on the f acts an d mu st gi v e du e de feren ce to th e de term inatio ns of the jury.” Id. at 705. W hile6

w e ma y not agree wi t h t he jury’s decision , w e mu st “af ford the app ropriate def eren ce in orde r to avoid subst ituting [ou r] judgme nt for that of the jury.” Id. Se cond, i f w e det er mine that the ev ide nce is factual ly ins uff ic ien t, w e must ex pla in pr eci sel y w hy

. Id. T hird, w e mu st “rev iew all of th e e v iden ce in a ne utral light, as opp osed to a legal-suf f iciency rev iew

in
w hich th e evidence is v iew ed in th e lig ht m ost f avorable to th e v erdict.” Id. W e w ill rev erse fo r fa ct u a l in su f

f ici e n cy of

th e evid e n ce if

“th e evid e n ce su p p o rt in g th e ve r d i c t , th o u gh leg all y su ff ic ien t, is nonethel ess too w eak to s uppor t i t” or i f, “w hen c onsi der ing co nflic ti ng
ev ide nce, the jur

y 's v er dic t is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce. ” Id. III . A nal ysis Ser ra ta arg ues that he did not commi t the burg lar y , but ra ther , h is gir lf ri end, Sa l az ar , s t o l e t h e j e w e l r y a n d t h e n b l a m e d h i m
. T h e j u r y o b v i o u s l y d i d n o t b e l i e v e hi m. T he te stimo ny of

Ruby, Lara , and Sala z ar com bine d is legally suf f icient to supp ort the jury ’s
v er dic t. W e affor d g re at deferenc e to the re spons ibi li ty of the t ri er

of fact to r esol v e c onfli cts i n th e te s ti mo ny , to w eigh the e v i de nc e, a nd t o draw r ea s on ab l e i nfe r en c es t he r efrom
. Cle wi s v. State , 9 2 2 S. W .2d 1 26, 1 33 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ; Adel m an v . St ate , 828 S.W .2d 4 18, 4 21 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 2). W e resolve any incon sistencie s in the evidence in fav or of the v er dic t. Cur ry v. Sta te, 30 S. W .3d 3 94, 4 06 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Ma tso n
v. State , 819 S.W .2d 8 39, 8 43 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1991)

. The fact finde r is the jud g e of the
cr edi bil it y

of the w it ness es and may bel iev e all , some, or none of the te sti mony
. Chambers
v. State , 805 S.W .2d 459 , 461 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91).7

T h e ju ry a s s e s s ed th e credibility of S e rr a t a a n d S a la za r, reje c t e d S e rr a t a ’s t e s t im o n y, and ac cept ed Sal az ar ’s tes ti mony
. The ju ry al so cl ear ly

ac cept ed Lara’s t e st imony , w ho
saw Serrata at the hom e on the da y in q uest ion. Given this t e s t im o n y, the ev iden ce is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he v er dic t. Ser ra ta’ s tw o i ss ues ar e ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON F or the abov e g iv en reason s, the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.