# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o. 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 Li sa 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 le gally insufficient to support the delinquency finding. We affirm. B ACKGROUND 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 men04

- 14

- 00708

- CV

- 2

- were wearing fluorescent work vests, M r. 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 vest s; 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 ar rived, 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 recalle d 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 “B lack & M ild ” cigar on the floorboard of the t ruck. 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 tr uck 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 followe d 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 two

pack of “Black & Mild” cigars with one of the cigars missing. According to the detective, officers04

- 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 i n 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 no r 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 truc k. 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 fou nd G.L.R. Jr. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing theft. After disposition, G.L.R., Jr. perfected this appeal. A NALYSIS 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 challe nge 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 c ases, we review a legal sufficiency challenge under the04

- 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 ele ments 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 in consistencies 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
r eviewe d 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 ju dgment 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 ma y 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 ul timate 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 whe ther the necessary04

- 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 St ate 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 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 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 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03(e)(4)(a)
.04

- 14

- 00708

- CV

- 6

- day of the theft that earlier that day, he had seen two men s itting 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. wa s 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 st olen 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 p ounds, 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 h e 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” c igar 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 favorabl e 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 wi tnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, to draw reasonable04

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