### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 853 -CV

In the Matte r of E. G.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 3,66 8 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
E.G. wa s found to have eng ag ed in delinquent conduc t by committing burg lary

of a habitation and thef

t of proper

ty valued at $50 or more but less than $500. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.03 (West Supp. 2008); Tex . Penal C ode Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003), § 31.03 (West S upp. 2008). The juvenile c ourt place d E.G. on probation for one y ear in his mot her’ s custody . E.G. conte nds that the finding s of g uilt are not supported by the evidence . He a lso contends that the juvenile c ourt
su bje c te d h im t o d ou

ble je op ard

y by fi nd ingthat he comm itt e d b oth burg lary and the ft . We wi ll modify the j udg ment of delinquency to delete the theft finding and af firm the judg ment as modified. At 1:30 p.m. on Dece m b er 23, 2004, Vesta Storms retur ned to her

apar tment from
a shopping trip to discove r that someone ha d kicked ope n the front door , enter ed the a partment, a

nd stolen jewelry , audio and video disc s, a video g ame mac hine, a kara oke machine, and a subw oofer
. Storms was able to provide rec eipts for only some of the stolen prope rty , but she testified that her total loss was at least $1,200.Valdez testified that she did not re cog nize the object as a kara oke mac hine, and that she 1 wa s late r t old

that th a t is wh a t it

wa s. 2 Storms testi fied that thre e day s befor e the burg lary , E.G., his c ousin E.M. ( who lived in t he same a pa rtme nt c omp le x), a

nd a thi rd bo y name d R. A. (w ho a lso liv e d ne arb y ) h a d c ome to her a partment to visit her boy friend. She testified that on this occa sion, R.A. had kicked at her door
and the bo y s h a d “ pu sh e d th e ir wa y ” int o th e a

pa rtme nt. Storm s said

that w hil e E. G. wa s in the apa rtment on Dec ember

20, he pointed to seve ral it ems and told her that she should give them to him; t hese items we re a mong those stolen. She char acte rized E.G.’s attitu d e t h at day as “intimidating.” Storms also testified that on Dec ember 23, about thirty minutes before she re turned ho me to f ind tha t he r a pa rtme nt h a d b e e n b ur g lari zed , s he re c e ive d a c e ll p ho ne c a ll f

ro m E .M
. inq uir ingwh e re sh e and

he r b oy fr ie nd

we re . Sh e sa id t

hat sh e c ou ld h e ar E .M .’ s c ou sin s in the bac kg round “hollering” and “laug hing.” Storms testi fied that a fter disc overingthe burg lary and
c a lli ngthe po lic e , s he we nt t o E .M .’ s a pa rtmen t whe re sh e fo un d h im, E. G. , a nd a thi rd c ou sin standing outside. Storms acknowledg ed that s h e did not see a ny of her stolen proper

ty in the po sse ssi on

of E. G. or the oth e r b oy s. Vivian Valde z, R .A.’s mother, te stified that o n t he nig ht of J anuar y 10, 2005, she entered R.A.’s bedroom and found hi m standing at hi s window. E.G. wa s outside the window holding a kara oke mac hine. Valdez asked her son what was happening , and R.A. told her that E.G. 1 had come by

“to pick up his stuff.” E.G. t old Valdez t he same thing. Va ldez told E.G. to l eave and he did so, saying, “I ’ll be back for my other stuff.” A ng ry at his mother, R.A. immediately left the3

apar tment and did not return. On January 13, Valdez re ported he r son missing. She later discover ed
a su bw oo fe r i n R. A. ’s c los e t.

Deputy J ustin Rowland i n v est iga ted both the burg lary

at Storms’s apar

tment and R.A.’s disappea

ranc e. Rowland took a photog raph of the s ubwoofe r found by Valdez and showe d it to S torms, who identified it as the one stolen from her apar tment. Rowland testified that he ne ver saw or f ound the stolen kara oke mac hine. E.G.’s mot her, Gloria DeL aPaz, testified that on J anuar y 10, 2005, she and E.G . wer e visiti ng her br other and his son, E.M., when E.M. rec eived a telephone call fr om R.A. R.A. offer ed to sell a kara oke mac hine for $75. D eL aPaz testified that E.G. wa nted to purcha se the mac hine and th a t s h e a g r e e d

to g iv e h im

th e mo n e y . Sh e d

r o v e E
. G
. to R. A
. ’ s a

p artm e n t w h e r e , a t a

bout 10:30 p.m., she watche d E.G. g o to the front door and then to the window, wher e the pur chase was made. She c ould not hear w hat was sa id. De L aP az testified that neither she nor E.G . knew at the time that the kar aoke machine was stolen, and that she saw nothing unusual in the circ umstances of the tra nsaction. E.G. testified that he purchas ed the ka raoke machine f

rom R.A. as his mother descr ibed and g ave it to his brother, w ho sti l l h ad i t . E.G. denie d ever being inside Storms’s apartmen t. E
. G
. te s ti f

ie d th a t h e h a d

n e v e r me t R
. A
. b e f

o r e th e n ig h t h e p u r c h a s e d th e k a raoke machine f rom him. E.G. denied knowingthat the kar aoke ma chine wa s stolen. The pe tition allege d that on or about De cembe r 23, 200 5 , E
. G. enter ed Storms’s residenc e without her e ffe ctive conse nt and attempted to commit and committed theft. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 30.02(a) (3) ( West 2003). The petition further alleg ed that on the same date,4

E.G. ac quired a

nd exercised c ontrol over pr operty belong ing to St o rm s an d worth $50 or more , “name ly Kar okee [ sic ] M a c hin e , wo of e r and sp e a ke r, ” wi tho ut Sto rm ’s e ff e c tiv e c on se nt a

nd wi th the intent to deprive he r of the pr operty
. Se e id . § 31.03(a) , (b)( 1) (West Supp. 2008).

At t h e c o n cl u s i o no f t h e a d j u d i ca t i o nh ea ri n g, t h e c o u rt an n o u n ce d i t s fi n d i n gs
a s f oll ow s: Okay . Well, let me start out by saying, f irst of all, that [E.G.] , y our testimony is unbelievable, and, [E.G.] , y our mother’ s testimony is unbelievable, w hich leave s me w it h M s . St o r

ms an d M s . V a ld e z. Ms. Sto rm s ma

y have an a x to g ri nd
. Ms. Va lde z do e sn ’t . H e r t e sti mony is very clea r that she sa

w y ou at the windo w o f her son’ s room taking proper ty and say ingI ’l l c ome ba c k f

or the re st o f my

stu ff . A s it tur ns ou t, t hat fit s v e ry

nic e ly wi th the stu ff that wa s take n fr om Ms. Sto rm s’ s a pa rtme nt, the e xac t ite ms. An d s o Ic an o nly c on c lud e that y ou

g ot t hat st uf f f ro m—t hat it is your stu ff be c a

us e y ou sa id it was, and that y ou g ot it from the apar tment of Ms. Storms bec ause it matche d the stuff that wa s stolen from her apar tment. So I find the cha

rg es to be true
. I n h is f ir st a nd thi rd iss ue s, E. G. c on te nd s that the e vid e nc e is le g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to sustain the cour t’s finding that he committed the burg lary . The State contends that E.G. fa iled to preser

ve hi s factual sufficie ncy complaint beca

use he did not file a

motion for new tria l. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 3 24 (b )( 2) ; T e x. F a m. C od e Ann. § 5 1. 17 (a ) ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 8) ; In re J.B.M. , 157 S.W .3d 823, 827 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2005, no pet.). E.G.’s adjudication hearing
was a bench tr ial, howeve r, and r ule 324(b)( 2) a p p l i es o n l y t o jury finding s. W

estec h Eng’g, Inc

. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc. , 835 S.W .2d 190, 197 (T ex . App.—Austin 1992, no writ). The fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y c omp la int

is p ro pe rl y

be fo re us . Ad jud ic a tio ns of de lin qu e nc y are ba se d o n th e c ri min a l st and ard of pr oo f. Te x. F a m. Code Ann. § 54.03(f

) (West Supp. 2008). There fore , we r eview the sufficie ncy of the e vidence by5

a pp lyingthe sta

nd ard s a pp lic a ble to c ha lle ng e s to the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e in c ri min a l c a se s. In re E.P. , 963 S.W .2d 191, 193 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). I n a leg al suffic iency revie w, we view all the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t and deter mine whether

any rational tr ie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e le me n ts o f th e o f f e n s e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b le d o u b t. Clayton

v . S tat e , 2 35 S.W. 3d 77 2, 77 8 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). I n a f a c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we vie w a ll the e vi den ce in a

ne utr a l li g ht a

nd de te rm ine wh e the r t

he ve rd ic t is c le arl y

wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust or ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera n ce o f t h e available evidenc e. W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006).

There is no dispute that Storms’s apartment wa s burg larized. The only question is whether E .G. was shown to ha ve co m m i t t ed t h e burg lary
. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.01(a) (West 2003) (def

ining “ party”). B eca

use no one sa

w E.G. in or n ea r the apa rtment at the time of the burg lary , th e e vid e nc e is n e c e ssa ri ly c ir c ums tanti a l. I

n a c ir c ums tanti a l e vi den c e c a se , it is
un ne c e ssa

ry fo r e ve ry fa c t to po int dir e c tly and

ind e pe nd e ntl y

to t he a c c us e d’ s g uil t; i t is e no ug h if the finding of g uilty is w arr anted by the cumulative f orce of all the incr iminating evide nce. Po we ll

v . S tat e , 194 S.W .3d 503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

T h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t an c e s p o i n tt o E
. G
. ’ s i n v o l v e m e n ti nt h e b u r g l ar y: • E.G., his cousin E.M., and R.A. pushed t h eir wa y into St orms’s apa

rtment three day s befor e the bur g lary . Whil e ther e, E.G. be haved in a n intimi dating manner

and i n d i c a t e d t h a th e w an t e d

s o m e o f t h e p r o p e rt y l a t e r

t a k e ni nt h e b u r g l ar

y. • Thirty minutes before Stor ms returne d home and discove red the burg lary , she rec e iv e d a c a ll f

r o m E
. M
. w an ti n g to kn o w h e r w h e r e a b o u ts
. St o r

ms c ould hear E.M.’s cousins laug hing in the ba ckg round.6

• A ft e r d isc ov e ri ngthe burg lary , St or ms w e nt t o E .M .’s apartme nt i n th e same complex and found him, E.G., and a third c ousin standing outside. • At 10:30 p.m. on J anuar y 10, two-and- a-ha lf wee ks after the burg lary , R.A. was seen by his mother handing E.G. a karaoke machine thr oug h his bedroom window. E.G. told Valdez that he wa s “pick[ing] up his stuff.” A ka raoke machine w as stolen d u r i n g t h e b u r g l ar

y. • E.G. told R.A. on J anuar y 10 that he would be “ back f or my other stuff.” Valdez la te r f ound the su bw oo fe r sto le n dur ing the burg lary in R .A .’ s b e dr oo m c los e t. I n h is own testimony , E.G. did not deny or explain this remark. Viewingthese incr iminating cir cumstance s in the light most favora ble t o t h e re s ult, we hold that their cumulative f

orce is leg ally sufficie nt to support a finding bey ond a re asonable doubt that E.G.
wa s a pa rt y to t he burg lary

a t Sto rm s’ s a

pa rtme nt. Unquestionably , there are weaknesses in the S tate’s case w hen the c ircumstance s are viewed in a

neutra l light. E.G. denied ever being in Storms’s apar tment. The kar aoke ma chine E.G
. rec eived from R.A. was not positively identified as the ma chine stolen fr om Storms’s apartment, and both E.G. and his mother t es t i fi ed that this was an innoce nt purcha se. The subw oofer in R.A.’s closet, which w as identified by Storms, was never

shown to be in E.G.’s phy sical possession. The trier of fa ct alone de termines the wei gh t to place on c ontradictory testimony beca use that det er m i n at ion depends on a n evaluation of cre dibilit y and deme anor. Cai n v . S tat e , 958 S.W .2d 404, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We may not substit ute our judg ment for that of the juvenile cour

t simpl y beca use we disag ree with the court’s ve rdict. Id . at 407. The juve nile court expressly found both E.G. and his mother to be unbe lievable witnesse s. Giving this deter mination the def ere nce it is due, we hold that the evidenc e supporting the cour t’s finding that E.G. committed7

the burg lary

is not so wea

k as t o make the f

inding c lear ly

wrongor manife stly

unjust, and that the court’s f inding is not ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. I n his remaining issues, E.G. contends that the evidenc e is insuff icient to sustain the juvenile cour

t’s finding that he eng ag ed i n d el inquent conduct by committing theft, a

nd that the finding s that he committed both bur g lary and thef t constituted double jeopardy
. See B reed v . Jones , 421 U.S. 519, 531 ( 1975); In re J .R.R. , 696 S.W .2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1985). We ag ree with both of the se c on te nti on s.

Although Storms testified that a considera ble amount of prope rty

was stolen during the burg lary , the petition acc used E.G. of stealing only

a kar aoke ma chine, a

subwoofer , and a sp e a ke r. Th e re is n o e vid e nc e that a sp e a ke r o the r t

han th e su bw oo fe r w a s st ole n, and the re is no evidenc e of the subwoofer ’s value. T he kar aoke ma chine wa s shown to have a value of $47.76. I n th e a b s e n c e o f a g g r av a t i n g c i r c u m s t an c e s n o tp r e s e n th e r e , t h e f to f p r o p e rt y v a l u e d a tl e ss than $50 is a cla ss C mi sdemea nor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e) (1)( A) (West Supp. 2008). A class C misdemeanor is punishable only by a fine
. Id
. § 12.23 (West 2003). The violation of a penal law that is not punishable by imprisonment or co n fi n ement in j ail does not constitute delinquent conduct. Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 51.03(a) (1) ( West S upp. 2008).

I n addition to having no e videntiary support, it is apparent from the r ecor d that the juv e nil e c ourt ’s the ft fi nd ing vio la te d th e do ub le je op ard y g ua ra nte e a g a ins t mu lti ple punis hme nts for the sa me offe nse. Se e Go nz ale z v . S tat e , 8 S.W .3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 0 0 ). T he pe tit ion a lle g e d that E. G. e nte re d Sto rm s’ s ha bit a tio n and atte mpt e d to c omm it and c omm itt e d th e ft
. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (3). I t was nec essar y for the State to pr ove all the e lements of8

the theft in orde r t o p ro ve the bur g lary
. Lan gs v . S tat e , 183 S.W .3d 680, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). B eca

use all the e lements of the thef t were included within the burglar y , the two offe nses wer e t h e s am e for double jeopardy purposes. Id
. We w il l n o t le n g th e n th is o p in io n b y a d dr e s s in g the State ’s argume nts to t

he c on tr ary , w hic h w e fi nd to b e wi tho ut m e ri t. We o ve rr ule E. G. ’s c ha lle ng e s to th e juv e nil e c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat he e ng a g e d in delinquent conduc t by

committing burg lary . We sustain E.G.’s cha lleng es to the cour t’s finding that he e ng a g e d i n d e lin qu e nt c on du c t by c omm itt ingthe ft . B e c a

us e the burg lary

fi nd ingne c e ssa

ri ly included a f in d in g th a t E
. G
. c o mm itte d th e f t, it is n o t p r o b a

b le th a t t h e c o u rt’ s e r

r o r cause d t h e re n d i t i o n of an imprope r disposition order. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 44 .1 (a ); see also In reC.P. , 92 5 S. W.2 d 1 51 , 1 52 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 96 , w ri t de nie d) . T he re fo re , w e mo di fy the j uv e nil e
c ourt ’s jud g me nt to de le te the fi nd ing that E.G . en g a g e d in del inq ue nt c on du c t by

c omm itt ingthe ft , and we aff

irm the judg ment as modified.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: De cembe r 10, 2008