Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00708-CV

IN THE MATTER OF G.L.R. Jr., A Juvenile

From the 436th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-JUV-01095

The Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

AFFIRMED

The trial court found G.L.R. Jr. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense 

of theft. After a disposition hearing, the trial court placed G.L.R. Jr. on probation for a period of 

nine months. On appeal, G.L.R. Jr. raises a single point of error, contending the evidence is legally 

insufficient to support the delinquency finding. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The evidence shows the complainant parked his vehicle, a Ford F-250 pickup truck, outside 

a hotel where he was staying. The next morning, the complainant discovered his truck was missing 

and called police. 

Later that morning, at an apartment complex, a maintenance man, Nathaniel Ortiz, saw a 

truck idling in the parking lot. He testified he saw two men inside the truck. Because the men 
04-14-00708-CV

- 2 -

were wearing fluorescent work vests, Mr. Ortiz believed the men might be working on the 

property; he initially did not believe they were out of place. However, approximately thirty 

minutes later, he saw the same two men exiting the property. At that time, they were no longer 

wearing the vests; rather, one man was wearing a muscle shirt and the other was wearing a t-shirt. 

Mr. Ortiz informed Terry Gleason, a maintenance supervisor at the same apartment complex, about 

the men’s actions. 

Mr. Gleason testified he also saw the two men in the idling truck. He saw the men exit the 

vehicle and walk away. Suspicious, Mr. Gleason called Detective Richard Buchanan, a police 

officer Mr. Gleason had dealt with in the past. Detective Buchanan came to the complex at Mr. 

Gleason’s request. When he arrived, the detective ran the truck’s license plate number and 

discovered the truck had been reported stolen. The truck was the one reported stolen by the 

complainant. Detective Buchanan took a description of the two men from Mr. Gleason, which he 

recalled in court as two Hispanic males, one five-two and the other five-five, both approximately 

120-125 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes. During a search of the truck, Detective 

Buchanan found the stub of a “Black & Mild” cigar on the floorboard of the truck. He also found 

two fluorescent traffic vests, one in the back seat of the truck, the other on the ground near the 

truck.

While Detective Buchanan was conducting his investigation, Mr. Ortiz alerted Mr. Gleason 

that the two men who had been in the truck were walking along outside the gate of the complex, 

watching the officers. Mr. Gleason then saw the two men standing about a half a block away, still 

watching, and told Detective Buchanan. Mr. Gleason got in his vehicle and Detective Buchanan 

followed him, heading toward the two men. At that time, the men fled. Detective Buchanan 

pursued and arrested the two men. When he searched the men, Detective Buchanan found a twopack of “Black & Mild” cigars with one of the cigars missing. According to the detective, officers 
04-14-00708-CV

- 3 -

brought Mr. Ortiz to where the two men were being detained and he was able to positively identify 

them as the men who had been sitting in the idling truck. 

Mr. Gleason affirmatively identified the fleeing men as those he saw sitting in the truck 

that morning. Mr. Gleason stated in court that the suspects were wearing a white t-shirt and a 

white muscle shirt, and they were both wearing khaki bottoms — one man was wearing pants, the 

other man, shorts. 

In court, neither Mr. Gleason nor Mr. Ortiz could positively identify G.L.R. Jr. as the same 

man who had been sitting in the truck the day of the theft. However, they both positively stated 

that one of the persons who was arrested that day was one of the men they saw sitting in the truck. 

Detective Buchanan identified G.L.R. Jr. as the person he arrested for theft and as the person 

identified at the time by Mr. Gleason and Mr. Ortiz as one of the men who had been sitting in the 

truck the day of the theft.

Ultimately, the trial judge found G.L.R. Jr. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing 

theft. After disposition, G.L.R., Jr. perfected this appeal.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, G.L.R. Jr. raises one point of error, challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence. Specifically, he contends the evidence was insufficient to establish he was the 

perpetrator of the offense. In other words, G.L.R. Jr. claims the evidence is insufficient to prove 

identity. 

Standard of Review

In appeals from juvenile adjudication proceedings, we review a challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence under the standard of review applicable in criminal cases. In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d 

65, 71 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.); In re T.K.E., 5 S.W.3d 782, 784-85 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal cases, we review a legal sufficiency challenge under the 
04-14-00708-CV

- 4 -

standard announced by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 

893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Mayberry 

v. State, 351 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d). Under this standard, 

we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine if any rational trier of 

fact, in this case, the trial judge, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Orellana v. State, 381 S.W.3d, 645, 652 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, 

pet. ref’d) (quoting Mayberry, 351 S.W.3d at 509); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks, 323 

S.W.3d at 899. We must resolve any inconsistencies in favor of the verdict. Gonzales v. State, 

330 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (citing Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 

394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). 

Findings following a bench trial are given the same deference as a jury verdict and are 

reviewed under the same standard. In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d at 71 (citing McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 

722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1986)). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must 

defer to the trial court’s weighing of the evidence, resolution of conflicts in the testimony, and 

assessment of credibility. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Orellana, 381 S.W.3d at 653 (citing 

Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). We cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of 

the fact finder. Orellana, 381 S.W.3d at 653 (citing King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2000)). The fact finder is the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight 

to be given to their testimony and may accept or reject all or any portion of a witness’s testimony. 

Orellana, 381 S.W.3d at 653 (citing Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008)). The fact finder maintains the power to draw reasonable inferences from the basic facts to 

ultimate facts and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Orellana, 381 S.W.3d at 653 (citing 

Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Welch v. State, 993 S.W.2d 690, 

693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.)). We must determine whether the necessary 
04-14-00708-CV

- 5 -

inferences are reasonable based on all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Mayberry, 351 S.W.3d at 509 (citing Clayton v. 

State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)); see Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (holding standard of review is same for both direct and circumstantial 

evidence).

Application

To establish G.L.R. Jr. committed the offense of theft as alleged in the petition, the State 

had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt G.L.R. Jr. appropriated the truck without the owner’s 

effective consent with the intent to deprive the owner of the truck. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 31.03(a), (b)(1) (West 2011).

1 As we have noted, G.L.R. Jr. contends the State failed to prove 

he was the one who took the truck, i.e., the State failed to prove identity. He specifically points 

out that neither eyewitness — Mr. Ortiz or Mr. Gleason — was able to identify him in court as the 

person they saw in and around the truck on the day of the theft. However, the identity of an alleged 

perpetrator may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and may, in fact, be proven by inferences; 

direct evidence is not required. See Orellana, 381 S.W.3d at 653; In re C.D.S., No. 10-07-00226-

CV, 2008 WL 257238, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). Proof by 

circumstantial evidence is not subject to a more rigorous standard of proof, and circumstantial 

evidence alone may be sufficient to establish guilt. Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013). 

As detailed above, the evidence established two witnesses — Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Gleason 

— saw G.L.R. Jr. in the vehicle soon after it was stolen. Although neither witness was able to 

identify G.L.R. Jr. in court, Detective Buchanan specifically testified Mr. Gleason told him on the 

 1 It is undisputed the value of the truck was more than $1,500.00, but less than $20,000. Accordingly, the offense 

charged by the State is a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(a). 
04-14-00708-CV

- 6 -

day of the theft that earlier that day, he had seen two men sitting in the truck, but they had left the 

property. Mr. Gleason also informed the detective the men were nearby and watching while 

officers processed the truck; he pointed them out to the detective. When the detective caught up 

to the men, G.L.R. Jr. was one of the men who had been pointed out by Mr. Gleason. Moreover, 

after he apprehended G.L.R. Jr. and his companion, Detective Buchanan testified Mr. Ortiz was 

able to identify G.L.R. Jr. at the scene as one of the men he had seen that morning in the stolen 

truck. In court, Detective Buchanan identified G.L.R. Jr. as one of the men he apprehended and 

arrested. Additionally, G.L.R. Jr. matched the general description provided by Mr. Gleason —

Hispanic male, between 5’2” and 5”5”, approximately 120-125 pounds, with brown hair and 

brown eyes. Mr. Ortiz’s description in court included a recollection that the men were wearing 

fluorescent vests, and two such vests were found in or near the truck. 

In addition, the evidence establishes G.L.R. Jr. fled when he noticed Mr. Gleason and the 

detective looking at him and his companion. See Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 470 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011) (quoting Alba v. State, 905 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that 

flight is admissible as circumstance from which inference of guilt may be drawn)); Clayton v. 

State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that fact finder may draw inference 

of guilt from circumstance of flight). Finally, Detective Buchanan found the stub of a “Black & 

Mild” cigar in the stolen truck. When the detective apprehended G.L.R. Jr. and his companion, a 

two-pack of “Black & Mild” cigars was found on G.L.R. Jr.’s companion; the pack was missing a 

single cigar.

Based on the evidence — viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict — we hold the 

evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that G.L.R. Jr. committed the 

offense of theft. See Mayberry, 351 S.W.3d at 509. It was for the trial court, as fact finder, to 

judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, to draw reasonable 
04-14-00708-CV

- 7 -

inferences from the testimony, and to resolve any evidentiary conflicts. See Orellana, 381 S.W.3d 

at 653. Given the testimony, we hold the trial court had sufficient evidence to find G.L.R. Jr. 

committed theft, i.e., stole the truck. Accordingly, we overrule G.L.R. Jr.’s sole point of error. 

CONCLUSION

Based on our analysis of the evidence within the prism of the applicable standard of review, 

we hold the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of delinquency based on 

the offense of theft. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice