NO. 07-08 -029 6-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

21, 2010

_________

_________

_________

___ LEO NARD L. MARTINEZ, SR., APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 7- 416,142 ; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , Leo nard L. M artine z , Sen ior, w as convicted by a jury of felon y burglary of a hab itation enh ance d by two prior felon y co nvictions a nd sent ence d by the trial court to con f inem entfor life . Appe llant asse rts (1) the e vid e n c e is l egally and factu ally ins uff ic ien t, and t he tr ial cour t er re d by (2 ) admitti ng an unwar ned sta tement in v iol ati on of hisr ig ht ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on and arti cl e 38. 22 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr iminal2

Procedu re ; (3 ) admitti ng ev ide nce of an extraneous burg lar y i n v iol ati on of R ule s 4 04( b) and 4 03 of

t he T exas Rule s o f

E v iden ce; and (4) denying his mot ion to supp ress evi den ce ba s ed u po n an i l l eg al a r res t. W e affi r m. Back ground On May 15, 200 7, a Lu bbo ck Count y Grand Ju ry

returne d a n indictm entagainst App e l l a n t a l l e g i n g t h a t h e i n t e n t i o n a l l y e n t e re d t h e h a b i t a t i o n o f C a n d ra F u l ford, on or about Apr il 24, 2007, w it hout her co nsent , and w it h the i ntentto commi t t heft. The indictmen t al s o c on ta i ne d en ha nc em en t pa rag rap hs w hi c h al l eg ed A pp el l an t ha d tw i ce before b een c onv icted o f the felony offense of deli v er

y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. I. Hea rin g on A pp ellan t’ s M ot io n toSu pp ress In hi s mot ion to suppress , Appell ant a ss erted h e was il leg all y ar re ste d w it hout probabl e c ause. Asa resul t, he s oug ht t o s uppress al l ev ide nce der iv ed from the s eiz ure. He als o as ser

ted h is unwar ned s ta te m e n ts , made pr ior to re cei v ing any

admoni ti on conc er nin g hi s r ig hts ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on, were i nadmis si ble
. At t he s uppress ion hear ing , Se rg eant Ma rk W ims of the L ubboc k B urg lar y U nit , tes ti fied th at, on Apr il 24, 2007, he re cei v ed a c all repor ti ng a bu rg lar

y at 2705 86 Street.

th T h a tca ll im p li c a t e d t h re e H is p a n icm a le s a n d a m a ro o n F o rd E xp e d it io n in t h e b u rg la ry. T he SUV ’s description was similar to a pa rticular SUV linked to Leo nard Martinez, Junior,Ser geantW i m s i ni t i at ed a n i nv est i gat i on ofM ar t i nez Juni or ’ s act i v i t i es aft err ecei v i ng a nony m ous 1 ti p s th a t h e w a s re s p o n s i b l e fo r b u rg l a rie s i n th e a re a a n d w a s a tte m p ti n g to s e l l s to l e n m e rc h a n d i s e .

Appel l ant , M ar t i nez Juni or , and a m ar oon For d Expedi t i on h ad b een seen at t he r esi dence num er ous 2 ti m e s . A p p e l l a n t w a s b e l i e v e d to b e l i v i n g a t t h e a d d re s s . 3 a burg lar y su spect t hat his unit had been inv est ig ati ng for sev eral months
. The on g oin g 1 inv est ig ati on by

the Burg lar

y U nitl ink ed App ell ant, Ma rt ine zJu nio r (h is so n) , and a maroon Ford Ex pedi ti on w it h a d ent o n the rear hatc h, t o a ho u se l o ca te d at 2810 65 Street. th 2 After re cei v ing the call r e p o rtin g the burg lar y , Se rg eant W ims se nt ou t a cal l that the v ehicle co nne cted w ith the reporte d bu rg lary ma tche d the description of a similar v ehicle seen par ked at 28 10 65 Street. th At a pprox imat ely 11:30 a.m., Det ect iv e Bobb y Thompson, Proper

ty C ri me D iv is ion , re cei v ed Serg eant W ims ’s ca ll repor ti ng a bu rg lar

y involv ing three H is pani c mal es and a maroo n Ex pedi ti on th at c oul d be loc ated at 28 10 65 Street. D etecti v e Thompson th proceed ed to the lo cat ion in an unmar ked car
. W hen he did n’tlocat e the Ex pedi ti on, h e park e d i n a lo t across f rom th e residen ce at th e inte rsection of 65 and Canto n Stree ts. th Sergean t W ims also p rocee ded t o tha t locatio n as did oth er o f f icers respon ding to his call. Serg eant W ims was aw are D etecti v e Thompson w as on l ocat ion l ooki ng for t he v ehi cl e. At a pprox imat ely

12:27 p.m., Detecti v e T hompson spotted a maroon SU V dr iv en by a H ispanic male. After the SU V drov e throug h the i ntersecti on, h e pul led behi nd and tur ned on hisf las hin g l ig hts
. The SU V th en pul led i nto t he dr iv ew ay at 2810 65 Street a nd

th sto pped.T he sa feg ua rds of M ir anda v. Ar

i z ona , 384 U
. S. 436, 86 S. C t
. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966) , com e 3 i n to p la yw h e n a p e rs o n i n c u s to d yi s s u b je c te d to e i th e r e x p re s s q u e s ti o n i n g o r i ts fu n c ti o n a l e q u i v a l e n t. R h o d e Is la n dv . I n n is , 446 U
. S. 291 , 300 - 01, 100 S. C t
. 168 2, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 ( 1980)
. A conf essi on m aybe de em ed “i nvo l un t ary ” ei t he r t hro ug h a fai l ure to c o m pl yw i t h t he di c t ates of M ir anda , n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i th ar t i cl e 38
. 22 o ft he Code o f C ri m i na l P r ocedur e orf ai l ur e t o com pl ywi t h du e pr ocess o rdue cour se of l aw b e c a u s e th e c o n f e s s io n w a s n o t f r e e ly g iv e n a s a r e s u lt o fc o e r c io n , im p r o p e rin f lu e n c e s , o rin c o m p e te n c y. W o lfe v . S ta te , 91 7 S
. W
. 2d 27 0, 28 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 96 ). 4 In c onformanc e w it h hi s train ing and ex per ien ce, D etecti v e Thompson treated the sto p as a “ hig h ri sk

felo ny stop” because burg lar

y su spects hav e been know n to be ar med. From a v antag e point behi nd his car door and engi ne f irew all , Detecti v e T hompson drew h is we a p o n a n d o rd e re d t h e o c c u p a n t s o u to f t h e S UV
. T h e d ri ve r exi t e d a n d jo in e d two pass eng ers o n the oppos it e s ide of the S UV
. Det ect iv e Thompson then ordered th e three men to li e dow n on the g ro und. Unc ertai n w hether anyone w as ins ide , he c ov ered th e front of the house and the SU V unt il Officer R ic hard C ald eron ar ri v ed and handc uffed th e three me n. T he o f

f icers then patt ed the m down, sepa rated them , and placed them in the ba ck seat s of dif

feren t pat rol cars for safety reaso ns. Detect iv e T hom pson testif ied th ey w ere not u nder

ar re st but d etai ned for further i nv est ig ati o n . Afte r the sc ene was sec ured, Det ect iv e Thompson loo ked ins ide the SU V to make cer tai n the re were no other pass eng ers and obser v ed a Sony Pl ay Stat ion and v ide o camera ly ing in th e f ro nt floor board on the p ass eng er si de of the v ehi cl e. Det ect iv e Thompson then spok e to each of the th re e men w it hout w ar nin g them of thei r ri g hts ag ain st sel f-in cr imi nati on. He ask ed thei r ide nti ti es, w here the y l iv ed, w hat t hey 3 w e re d o i n g a tt h e re s i d e n c e , a n d w h e t h e r t h e re wa s a n y o n e i n t h e h o u s e . A ppel lan t ass erted h e di d notl iv e at the resi dence but ow ned t he SUV
. A p p e llantal so sta ted h e5

loa ned t he SU V to hi s s on w hom he h a d j u st pic ked up. Appel lan t ex pla ine d the PlayStation and v ideo came ra w ere in the v ehicle “w hen he got the re.” W hen q uest ion ed by

D etecti v e Thompson, M arti nezJu nio r indi cat ed App ell ant a nd Daniel T rev ino, th e third pa ssenger in the SUV, picked him up abou t eight minu tes be fore the s top. H e cl aimed the Pl ay Stat ion and v ide o camera w ere in the S UVw hen Ap pel lan t pic ked him up. Trev ino refused to sp eak w it h D etecti v e Thompson. Acc ordin g to tes ti mony g iv en by

Serg eant W ims , Ca n d ra F ulford, t he v icti m w ho re por ted t he burg lar

y , was broug ht t o the locat ion of the sto p. She plac ed M arti nezJu nio r and t he SU V atthe sc ene of the burg lar

y . Based upon sur

v eil lan ce conne cti ng Appel lan t, Martinez Junior, the Fo rd Ex ped ition an d the residence at 281 0 65 Streetto a bu rg lary th inv est ig ati on, t he v icti m’s i d e n tificat ion of Ma rt ine zJu nio r and t he Ex pedi ti on as bei ng involv ed in the Ful ford burg lar y , the sus pect s’ confli cti ng sto ri es re g ardin g their pri or act iv it iesand the i tems found in the S UV , the three men were pl aced under ar re st and t he SU V i mpounded. W hen the SU V’ s cont ents w ere inv entor ied , Det ect iv e Thompson found a rec e ipt in the v ide o camera bag from Royal Car ri bean Inter nati onal to My rn a Por ra s. Later th at day , he ar ra ng ed to meet Por ra s a t her home. W hen s he ar ri v ed, P or ra s d eter mined that her hous e had been bu rg lar iz ed th at mor nin g w hil e she w as at w or k. She al so ide nti fied the v ide o c amera , Pl ay Stat ion , and j ew elr y tak en from Trev ino ’s poc ket s a s b elo ng ing to her
.6

Appel lan t t est ified that , w hen he w as ar re ste d, he w as dri v ing hi s g ir lfri end’ s S UV
. He further

tes ti fied D etecti v e Thompson ask ed for per mis si on to se arch the S UV , Ap pel lan t re fused, and the v ehi cl e w as searched w it hout per mis si on. He als o tes ti fied th at, w hil e he w as in the p atrol car , Detecti v e Thompson tol d hi m nothi ng was tak en atthe burg lar y on 86 Street. W hen as ked by the Stat e w hether

he volu n ta rily a nswered q uest ion s b y th De t e ct ive T h o m p s o n , A p p e ll a n tre s p o n d e d a f f ir m a t ive ly. T he trial cou rtr u le d t hatAppe llant’s stat em ent s mad e du ring the stop were ina d mi s s i b l e b e c a u s e h e h a d n o tb e e n “ mi ra n d i z e d ” b u td e n i e d t h e re ma i n d e r o f t he moti on. II. Th e T rial Cand ra Fulford t e stif ied she liv ed a t 270 5 86 Streetand was ho me w ith he r li ttle th brother on t he ni g ht of Apr il 19, 2007, w hen a strang e man b e gan b a ng ing on t he front doo r. The re w ere no v ehicles in the d riv eway b ecau se her olde r bro the r and pa rents were out for the ev eni ng . She di d notrecog niz e the ca ll er but coul d tel l he was Hi spani c. After she phoned her

mother w ho phon ed her

ol der brother , t he man walk ed away . Her ol der brother ar ri v ed mi nutes l ater

and confro nted the man, w ho th en l eft in a pi ck up. On t he mor nin g of Apr il 24, 2007, a day w hen ev er

y one i n the F ulford famil y was ty pic all y at sc hool or w or k, Ful ford was home al one bec ause she w as not feel ing well
. She ag ain heard s omeone bea ti ng on t he frontdoor
. W h en s he l ooked out a w ind ow , s heA t t r ia l, H a g e n F u lf o r d , C a n d r a ’s b r o th e r , d e s c r ib e d t h e e v e n ts t h a t o c c u r r e d a fte rh is a r r iv a l a t t h e ir 4 h o u s e t h e n i g h t o fA p r il 1 9 . H e id e n tif ie d M a r tin e z J u n io ra s th e p e r s o n h e c o n f r o n te d w a lk in g th r o u g h h is f r o n t y a r d a ft e rh e a r r i v e d
. H e a l s o i d e n t i f i e d Ma r t i n e z J u n i o r ’ s p i c ku p t r u c k p a r ke d o u t s i d e hi s ho us e . H e c o u l d n o t i d e n t i fyt h e d r i v e ro ft h e t r u c k.

T hose por t i ons o fD et ect i v e T hom pson’ s t est i m onyatt r i al t hatm i r r or ed h i s t est i m onyatt he 5 suppr essi on h ear i ng wi l l notbe r ei t er at ed. 7 obser v ed th e s ame man w ho had been po u n d in g o n the door se v eral days e ar li er . She saw hi m w alk

away and enter

a maroon Ex pedi ti on w it h ti nted w ind ows. The Ex pedi ti on was p a rke d fa cin g away f ro m th e c u l-d e -sa c a n d , a s itd ro ve a way, sh e o b se rved a la rge dent in the re ar

end of the SU V. She c all ed her mother and tol d her

the same man w as back. As instructed byher mo the r, Fulford locked t h e f ro n ta nd rea r doors to th e ho use sec ur ing the deadbol ts. Shor tl y t h e re a fte r, sh e heard two l oud ban g s a nd a crack ing noi se. Sh e tho ug ht someon e wa s i n t h e h o u s e . S h e c a l l e d h e r m o t h e r a n d t h e n c a l l e d 9 1 1
. S h e l o c ked hersel f in t he bat hroom and w ait ed for the p oli ce to ar ri v e. W it hin minut es, her g ra ndfather ar ri v ed foll ow ed bypoli ce off ic ers. Later, the same day , she accompan ied the pol ic e to a loc ati on w here s he i denti fied a Hi spani c mal e as the person sh e h a d s e e n outsi de her house se v eral nig hts ear li er and that same d ay . She als o i denti fied a maroo n Ex pedi ti on 4 w it h ti nted w ind ows a nd a dented re ar hatc h as the ve hic le she had s een t he man e nter outs ide her

hous e tha t s ame day
. Det ect iv e Thompson next testi fied. Appel lan t obj ect ed to any tes ti mony

rela ted t o 5 Appel lan t’ s s tatement s d ur ing the sto p bec ause Appel lan t was in cus tody and re cei v ed noI n hi s op en i ng s t atem en t , A pp el l an t ’ s c ou ns el as s ert ed t ha t , w he n t he S U V w as stop pe d b yD etec t i ve 6 T h o m p s o n , “ [A p p e lla n t] ju s t h a p p e n e d to b e in th e c a rth a t b e lo n g e d to h is g ir lf r ie n d , w h ic h h e h a d le n t h is s o n . . . .” 8 Mi ra nda warnings. T he St ate a s serted that , beca use Ap pellan t’s coun sel argued th e SUV’s ow nershi p dur ing hi s o peni ng st atement, the Stat e s houl d be abl e t o elic ittes ti mony of 6 Appel lan t’ s u nw a rn e d s tatements at t he s top reg ardin g the SU V’ s o w nershi p. The tr ial cour t ov er ru led Appell ant’ s objecti on and per mitt ed Detecti v e T hompson to t est ify that , at the s top, Appel lan t i nformed hi m he ow ned t he SU V. Jos e Vel asq ueztes ti fied, o n t h e mor nin g of the i nci dent, he was prepar ing to eat brea kfast w hen he saw som eon e jum p the Fu lford’s back fence . W ithin seco nds, he he ard a l oud s mashi ng so und, ra n to the back door , l ooked i nto t he F ulford’sy ard, an d obs er v ed two H is pani c males standi ng near the Ful ford res ide nce. He y ell ed, “ Hey !” The two men t h e n ra n t h ro u gh F u lfo rd ’s b a c kya rd ga t e b o rd e ri n g t h e a ll e y. Ve la s qu e z o b s e rve d t h e two me n jum p into an Expeditio n as it sped aw ay. He told p o li c e t h e E x ped ition w as a da rk color, burg und y w ith a den t in the back near the latch bene ath the rear w indo w , and there w ere at lea st three person s in the Expeditio n. Lat e r t h a td a y, he acco mp anie d po lice off ic ers t o anot her

locat ion w here he ide nti fied the Ex pedi ti on he obser v ed s peedi ng away in the a ll ey

and Ma rt ine zJu nio r a s o n e o f t h e persons he o bser v ed r unni ng from t he Ful ford hou se. Jeremy W int ers, Cr ime Scen e Off ic er , tes ti fied h e h a d ta ke n photog ra phs of the Fulford’s back d oor the day of th e bu rg lary . He testif ied th ere was a shoe print on th e do or.T hose por t i ons ofS er geantW i m s’ s t est i m onyat t r i al t hat m i r r or ed hi s t est i m onyatt he su ppr essi on 7 hear i ng wi l l notbe r ei t er at ed. 9 In hi s o pin ion , t he door

was loc ked and eithe r ki ck ed i n, or forc ed open by

so meone putti ng thei r shoul der

to the d oor , w it h s uff ic ien t forc e to re mov e a d eadbol t from the d oor j amb. Al Er ucl ian i, F ulford’sg ra ndfa th e r, tes ti fied th e door “ w as jus t t otal ly

bl ow n off” and “ev erything w as bu sted on the doo r.” Sergean t W ims testif ied tha t, w hen inv ent oried, the SUV co nta ined two crow bars, 7 a C oltai r pis tol , a prepai d mobi le phone, w alk ie- tal ki es, bl ack co tton g lov es, and lea ther glov es. T h e ite ms loca ted ben eat h the f ront sea t and w ithin th e cen ter conso le w ere, in histrain ing and ex per ien ce, freq uentl y us ed as weap o n s o r cri minal i nst ru ments, i. e., burg lar y tools
. He als o tes ti fied th e F ulford resi dence , Po rras re si dence , and the loc ati on w here the SUV was stoppe d w ere locat ed n ear ea ch oth er o f f U n iversity

Av enu e. He estim ate d the location s were no more than ten to f if tee n min ute s apa rt trav eling by car. Of f icer Sea n Gon z ales testif ied tha t, prior to April 24, he had obse rv ed th e SUV in the d ri v ew ay

at 2810 65 Street
. He al so obser v ed Appell ant a nd M arti nezJu nio r near the th SU V at that loc ati on. Off ic er Bi ll y Green tes ti fied that, w hen he s poke w it h Vel asq uezthe day of t he burg lar

y , Vel asq uez tol d hi m he obs er v ed two persons i n the SU V’ s b ackseat as itsp ed away

i n the al ley
. My rn a Por ra s t est ified that the v ide o c amera and Pl ay Stat ion foun d in the SUV w ere he r pro perty. She also ide ntif ied th e jew elry foun d on Trevino’s perso n as he r ow n. Altho ugh App ellantobject ed to any evidence o f the Po rrras bu rg lary bei ng admi tted becau se the e v ide nce w as ir re levant u nder R ule 401 of t he Tex as Rul esFor conv eni ence, t he T exas Rul es of Ev i dence wi l l be ci t ed t hr ougho ut t he r em ai nderoft hi s opi ni on 8 s i m p l ya s “R u l e __ _ .” 10 of Ev i de nc e a nd i mp er mi s s i bl e c ha racte r e v i de nc e un de r

R ul e 40 4( b) , th e tr i al c ourt 8 ov er ru led the obj ect ion
. At t he c oncl usi on of the ev ide nce, the jur y retur ned a v erdict of g uil ty on t he felony o f fe n s e o f b u rg la ry o f

a h a b it a t io n . Ap p e ll a n tp l e d t r u e t o t h e in d ic t m e n t ’s two enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs and t he tr ial co urt s entenc ed App ell ant to confinement for l ife. This appeal foll ow ed. Discus sion Appel lan t first ass erts the ev ide nce at tri al w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o convict him be cause t he Sta te failed to prove anyone en tered the Fulford reside nce. He n e xt a sserts the t ri al cour t er re d by

admi tti ng i nto e v ide nce Appel lan t’ s u nw ar ned state me nt tha t he o w ned the SUV. He conten ds the trial court erred by adm itting ev iden ce of the Por ra s burg lar

y becau se the e xtraneous offense w as ir re levant a nd more preju dic ial tha n prob ative. Fi nally, he co nte nds the t rial cou rt e rred by de nying h is motio n to sup press all ev iden ce discovered as a result of the stop beca use the off icers did nothave proba ble cau se to ar re st him w hen he w as ordered outof the S UV , t old to li e on the g ro und, handc uffed, a nd pl aced in the b ackseatof a pat ro l car .11

L o gic d ict a te s t h a t we co n sid e r Ap p e l l a n t ’s e vide n ti a ry issu e s b e fo re m a kin g a det ermin ation w het her the ev iden ce is legally a nd factu ally

su f f icient. A ccordingly , w e w ill address Appel lan t’ s s uppress ion ( Iss ue 7)and ev ide nti a ry (Issue s 3 , 4, 5 an d 6)i ss ues pr ior to hissu ff ic ien cy

i ss ues (I ss ues 1 and 2)
. I. Mo ti on T o Sup press A p p e llan t c o n ten d s D e tec tive T h o m p s o n effe c ted an un law fu l arres t b y d raw ing his servi ce we apo n, order i ng hi m ou t of t he SU V ont o t he gr oun d, ha ndc uf f i ng hi m , an d p l aci ng h im in the ba c k s e a t o f a pa tr o l ca r b e c a u s e D e tec tive Th o m p s o n lac k e d pro b a b le c a u s e t o ar r esthi m for

bu r gl aryatt hatt i m e. As a r esu l t , A ppe l l antassert s t he t r i al courtshoul d h ave s u p p res s e d all ev ide n c e ob tain e d by t h e offic e rs a fte r A p p e llan t w a s sto p p e d
. A . St and ard o f Rev iew A t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng on a mot ion to suppress i s rev iewed for abuse of dis creti on. Balenti ne v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 63, 7 68 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Hud son v. State , 247 S.W .3d 780 , 783 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 200 8, no pet .). In review ing a tr ia l c o u rt’s deter minat ion of t he re asona ble ness of a temporar y inv est ig ati v e detent ion, a p p ell ate c o u rt s u s e a b i fu rc a t e d s t a n d a rd o f rev iew
. For d v . St ate, 158 S. W .3d 4 88, 4 93 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. Al most total deference isgi v en to a t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion of the historical fa ctst ha t th e rec ord s up po rtse s pe c i al l y w he n th e tr i al c ou rt’ s fact fi nd i ng s a re based on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor
. St. Geor ge v . St ate, 237 S. W .3d 7 20,12

725 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Guz m an v. State , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). The same lev el of deference i s a ls o afforded t o a t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng on a ppl ic ati on of l aw to fact questio ns or mixed question s of law and fact if

the reso lution of

those q uest ions also t u r n o n a n e v a l u a t i o n o f c re d i b i l i ty a n d d e me a n o r . Mo n ta n e z v. St ate , 195 S.W .3d 1 01, 108 -09 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). How ever, if mixed quest io n s o f l aw and fact do not fall w it hin thes e c ateg or ies , app ell ate cour ts may condu ct a de nov o rev iew of the trial court’s ru li ng . Guz

m an, 955 S. W .2d a t 87. W hen , as here , no f indings of fact w ere requeste d no r filed , w e v iew the evidence in the lig ht m ost favorable to the tr ial court’s r uling and assum e the trial court mad e imp licit findi ng s o f factsu ppor ted b y the re cord. Se e St

ate v. Ross , 3 2 S .W .3d 8 53, 8 55- 56 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. If the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on i s cor re ct on any theo ry of the l aw appl ic abl e to the c ase, i t w il l be s ust ain ed. Ar m endar iz v. Sta te , 123 S.W .3d 4 01, 4 04 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Ross , 32 S.W .3d at 855. Fur ther , the leg al q uest ion of w hether the total ity of the c ircums tanc es is su ff ic ien t t o s upp o rta n of ficer’s reason abl e s uspi ci on u n d e r l y i n g a n i n v e s t i g a t o r y d e t e n t i o n i s rev iew ed de no vo . See S tate v. Sheppar d, 271 S.W .3d 2 81, 2 86- 8 7 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) ; Kothe v. State, 152 S. W .3d 5 4, 62 -6 3 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
.T exas co urt s fol l ow fed era l stan da rds w i t h res pe c t t o t em po raryi nve s t i ga t i ve s t op s an d a rr es t s r at her 9 th a n a p p l y a m o re s tri n g e n t s ta n d a rd u n d e r th e T e x a s C o n s ti tu ti o n . J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 912 S. W
. 2d 2 27, 231 - 3 4 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). 13 B. In vest ig at or

y D et ent io n v . A rre st The F ourt h Am end m entdo es notfor bi d a l l se i z ur es, j ustun r eas ona bl e s ei z ur es; R h o d e s v. S tate , 9 4 5 S .W .2d 11 5 , 1 1 7 ( T e x .C rim .A p p .) , cer t
. de nied , 5 2 2 U .S
. 8 9 4 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 236 , 13 9 L. Ed. 2d 16 7 ( 199 7) , an d, for pu r pos es of

co nst i t ut i ona l an al y si s, bo t h i nve st i gat i ve 9 d e ten tion s an d arre s ts a re s e izu res ofa c iti ze n by law en fo rce m e n t o ff ic e rs. Zay as v. State , 972 S. W .2d 7 79, 7 89 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1998, pet. re f’d)
. The di ff er enc es betwe en t he two ar e t he deg r ees of i nt r usi on i nvo l ved and t he di ff er entl ega l j ust i f i cat i ons r equ i r ed of e a c h
. I d. at78 8- 89. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on oc curs w hen an off ic er l acks p ro babl e c ause to ar re st but n o n e th e less poss ess es a reason abl e s uspi ci on: t hat i s, the o ff ic er i s a ble to poi nt t o specif ic, articulable facts th at, ta ken to gether w ith ration al inferen ces f rom th ose facts, re asona bly

war ra nts the detent ion
. Dav is v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 240, 24 4 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. The ar

ti cul abl e facts us ed by

the off ic er

mustcreate some re asona ble su spi ci on that some a cti v ity

out of the ordin ar

y i s o cc ur ri ng , or

has oc cur re d, s ome su g g est ion to conn ect th e det aine e w ith the unu sual act iv ity , and some indicatio n the unu sual act iv ity is re lat ed to cr imi nal acti v ity . I d. (cit in g Meeks v. Sta te , 653 S.W .2d 6 , 12 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1983 )
. An ar re st, on t he oth e r h a n d , is a g re ater rest ra intupon a person’ s freedom to l eav e or mo v e th an i s a t em po rar y d et en ti on w hi c h al s o res trai ns a p ers on ’ s free do m.14

Shepard , 271 S. W .3 d at 290. “ If the de g re e of in capac it ati on appe ars more tha n n e ce ss a ry to sim p ly sa fe gua rd th e of f ice rs a n d a ss u re th e su sp e ct ’s p re se n ce du rin g a per iod of i nv est ig ati on, thi s sug g est s the detent ion i s a n ar re st. ” Id. (q uoti ng 40 G eorg e E. Di x and Rob ert O. Dawson, T ex as Pract ic e: Cr imi nal Practi ce and Proc edure § 7.34, 462 (2 d ed. 2001) ). The s t andar d for

di st i ngu i shi ng betwe en an ar r estan d i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on i s n ot a lwa ys c lea r b e c a u s e t h e dis tinc tion be twe e n th e s e s e izu res re s ts o n a fa c t- s p e c ific inq u iry rath e r tha n cle a rlyde line a ted criteria
. Joh nso n , 9 1 2 S .W .2d at 2 3 5
. S e e M o rr is v. S tate , 50 S .W .3 d 8 9 , 9 4 ( T e x .A p p .–F o rtW o rt h 20 0 1 , n o pe t. ); J o s e y v. S tate , 98 1 S. W
. 2d 831 , 83 9 ( Tex
. App. –Hous t on [ 14 Di st
. ] 19 98, pet
. r ef ’ d)
. By def i ni t i on, “ [ a] person i s ar r est ed wh en he th has be en act ual l ypl ace d un de rr est r ai ntor t ake n i nt o c ust odybyan of f i cer or pe r son exe cut i ng a w ar r antof ar r est , or

byan of

f i cer or pe r son ar r est i ng wi t hou ta wa r r ant
. ” Tex
. C o d e C rim
. P roc . A n n . a rt
. 1 5 .22 ( V e rno n 20 0 5 ). T h is “res tr a int o f libe rt y” sta n d a rd, h o w e v e r, i s n otad equ at e w hen di st i ngu i shi ng betwe en an ar r esta nd a d eten t i on bec aus e i ti s a c h a rac teris tic c o m m o n t o bo th. Fran c e s v. S tate , 92 2 S. W
. 2d 176 , 17 9 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 19 96) ( J. Bai r d, co ncu r r i ng and di sse nt i ng)
. W het her a person i s u nde rar r estor s ub j ectt o a t em por aryi nve st i gat i ve det ent i on i s a m at t er of de gr ee and de pen ds on t he l eng t h o f t he det ent i on, the a m oun tof for ce em pl oy ed, an d w het her t he of f i cer ac t ual l yco ndu ct s a n inv e s tiga tion
. S e e W

o o d s v. S tate , 9 7 0 S .W .2d 77 0 , 7 7 5 ( T e x .A p p .–A u s tin 1 9 9 8 , p e t. r e f’d ). Dur i ng an i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on, an of f i cer m ay em pl oy t he for ce nec ess ary t o e ff ect t h e r e a s o n a b l e g o a l s o f t h e d e t e n t i o n : i n v e s t i g a t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e status qu o , an d15

o ff ic e r s a fe ty
. R h o d e s , 9 4 5 S .W .2d at 1 1 7
. A n o f f ic e r m a y co n d u cta li m it e d p a t -d o wn search of the out er

cl othi ng for weapons durin g a n i nv est ig ati v e det enti on i f the off ic er fears for his safety or that of ot hers. Jos ey, 9 8 1 S. W .2 d at84 0 (cit in g Dav is v. Sta te , 829 S.W .2d 2 18, 2 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)
. Pol i ce of f i cers a r e n ot requ i r ed t o u se t he “ l eas t intru s iv e m e a n s ” to v e rifyor d is p e l t h e ir s u s p ic ion s ; United States v. Soko low , 49 0 U. S. 1, 11 , 1 0 9 S .C t. 15 8 1 , 1 0 4 L.E d .2d 1 (1 9 8 9 ), h o w e v e r, if th e fo rce utilized ex c e e d s t h a t rea s o n a b ly nec ess aryt o e ffectt he goa l of t he st op, t hi s fo r ce m ayt r ans for m an i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on into a fu ll- b low n arre s t. S e e S tate v. M o o re , 25 S. W
. 3d 383 , 38 6 ( Tex
. App. –Aust i n 2 000 , no p e t. ). Beca use an off ic er ’s sa fetymay be t hreatened by

a pa ss eng er ’s ac ces s t o weapons in an aut omobil e, an of

ficer m ay , as a matter

of cours e, order

a pass eng er

lawfully st opped to ex itthe v ehi cl e; Rho des , 9 4 5 S. W .2 d at11 8 (cit in g Pe n n s y lv a n ia v. Mi

mms , 434 U .S. 106, 98 S. Ct . 330 , 54 L.Ed. 2d 331 (1 997) , and l ie dow n on the g ro und pen din g co mplet ion of the s top. See Sm it

h v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 99, 6 01 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1991, th pet. re f’d) ( inv est ig ati v e det enti on nott ra n sfo rmed int o an ar re st w hen officer req uest ed that sus pectex ithi s c ar , l ie on th e g ro und, and s ubmit t o a pat-dow n for off ic er sa fety re asons ). F urther more, appro a ch in g a v ehi cl e w it h a s er v ic e weapon d ra w n does not transfor m an i nv est igati v e det enti on to an a rrest
. See M ar sh v. State , 684 S.W .2d 6 76, 679 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 19 84 ) ( on e offi c er ap proa c hi ng dr i v er’ s s i de of v eh i c l e w i th a r if le drawn, w hile an oth er of f icer appro ache d the passe nger’s side of v ehicle wi th his gun in16

hand) ; Mo unt v

. St ate , 217 S.W .3d 7 17, 7 26- 27 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Dis t.] 2007, no th pet.)
. L ik e wis e , t h e u s e o f h a n d c u f fs d o e s n o t a u t o m a t ic a ll y c o n ve rt a n i n ve s t ig a t ive detent ion i nto a n ar re st; Shepard , 271 S.W .3d a t 286 , and there i s n o br ig ht l ine r ule that handc uff ing a s uspect al w ays c onst it utes an arrest ; Rho des , 945 S.W .2d a t 116 -1 8. Ordin ar il y

handc uff ing a s uspect i s more c onsi ste nt w it h a full- blo w n ar re st than iti s w it h an i nv est ig ator

y dete nti on; Rho des , 945 S.W .2d a t 117 , howev er , an off ic er may resor t t o han dcuf fs w ithou t transformin g an in v estigative de ten tion into an arrest w hen h e or she is re asona bly conc er ned for thei r safety or to maint ain the sta tus

quo . Shepard , 271 S.W .3d at 28 6 ( h a n d cuffed susp ectdur ing i nv est ig ati v e det enti on for safety pur posesand to maint ain sta tus

quo ). See al

so Balenti

ne , 71 S. W .3d at 771 ( in ve s tigativ e de ten tion d id not e v olv e i nto a n ar re st si mply bec ause a ppel lan t was esc orted t o pat ro l car and handc uffed) ; Rho des , 945 S.W .2d a t 116 -1 18 ( appel lan t req uired to ex itv ehi cl e and handc uffed) ; Mays

v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 9 37, 9 44 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) , cer t. denied , 484 U. S. 1 079, 108 S. Ct . 105 9, 98 L.E d.2d 1020 ( 1988)( fris ked and han dcuffed); Spig ht v. State , 76 S. W .3d 761 , 769 -70 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 2002 , no pe t.) (hand cuf fed); st Goldber g v . St ate , 95 S.W .3d 345, 360 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2002, pet. ref’d) , cer t. st denied , 540 U .S. 1190, 124 S. Ct. 1 4 3 6 , 158 L.E d.2d 99 ( 2004)( handc uffed) ; Morris , 50 S.W .3d a t 97- 98 ( re mov ed from t ru ck at g u n poi nt, pla ced on g ro und, and han dcuffed behi nd bac k) ; Jos ey, 981 S. W .2d a t 839 -4 0 ( re mov ed from c ar , patted- dow n, an d handc uffed) ; Nar

gi v. State , 895 S.W .2d 820 , 823 (Tex.App
. – Ho u ston [14 Dist.] 1995 ), th17

pet. dism ’

d, i m pr ovi dentl y gra nted , 922 S.W .2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App
. 1 996 ) ( han dcuf fed); Sal azar v. State , 805 S.W .2d 538, 540 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 91, p et. re f’d) ( re mov ed f rom ca r, hand s on he ad, han dcuf fed, and patt ed-d own). In t he abs ence of a reason abl e s afetyconcer n or nee d to maint ain the sta tus quo , how ev er , officers’ us e of force to sec ure a s uspect has been he ld to c onst it ute a n ar re st. See A m or

es v. State , 816 S.W .2d 407 , 411 -12 (Te x .Crim.Ap p . 1 9 91) (arrest w here handc uffed and no i nv est ig ati on per formed)
. See also Bur

kes v. Sta te , 830 S.W .2d a t 925 (a rrestw here handcuffed and no i nv est ig ati on per formed) ; A kins v. S tate , 20 2 S. W
. 3d 879 , 888 ( Tex. A pp. –Fort W ort h 2006, pe t. r e f’d ) (a rrestw here c ar boxed i n, ap proache d w it h guns drawn , p laced on ground , and han dcuf fed in ab sence of

any necessity to m ainta in of f icer sa fety or sta tus

quo ); Moore , 25 S. W .3d at 386 -87 (forgery suspe ct han dcuf

fed in absen ce of officer safety co ncer n) ; Gor

don v . St ate , 4 S.W .3d 3 2, 37 (Te x .Ap p.– El Paso 1999, no pet .)(handc uffed and pla ced in backseatof patrol car sol ely

to keep sus pectout of house w hil e K- 9 s earch per formed) ; Rod

ri quez v. Sta te , 975 S.W .2d 667, 6 75- 77 (Tex .App. –Tex arka n a 1998, pet. ref’d) ( box ed i n c ar , remov ed s uspect atg unpoi nt, had him li e face do w n i n par ki ng l ot, and per fo rm e d no inv est ig ati on) ; Fl or es v. State , 895 S.W .2 d 4 3 5 , 4 4 1 ( Te x . A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t
. ) ( re mo v e d fro m c a r a tg u npoi nt ass uming sp re ad- eag le posi ti on w it h hands on ro of of car , officer tes ti fied s uspect was not free t o l eav e, an d no ev ide nce of of ficer sa fetyco ncer ns)
.18

I n eva l uat i ng wh et her pol i ce con duc t dur i ng an i nve st i gat oryde t ent i on i s r eas ona bl e, c o m m o n s e n s e a n d o rdin a ryh u m a n e x p e rien c e g o v e rn o v e r rigid criteria
. See Rho des , 94 5 S. W
. 2d at11 8. W het her a det ent i on i s a n a ct ual ar r estoran i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on dep end s o n the rea s o n a b len e s s o f the intru s ion un d e r a ll the fa c ts. Id. Rea sonab len ess i s meas ured by bal anci ng the nature of the int ru si on i nto a n i ndi v idu al’ s F our th A mendment i nterest s ag ain st the publ ic int erest of leg it imat e g ov er nment i nterestat sta ke; Zay as , 972 S.W .2d at 78 9, an d mustbe j udg ed from t he perspecti v e of a reason abl e of f ice r a t the s cene, ra ther than w it h the adv antag e of hin dsi g ht. Rho des , 945 S.W .2d a t 118
. Al l ow anc es m ust be m ade for

t he factt hatof

f i cers m ustoft en m ake qu i ck dec i si ons un der t ens e, un cert ai n, an d rap idly ch a n g ing circ u m s tan c e s . I d. Addi t i ona l fact ors t o c ons i der i n de t erm i ni ng t he r eas ona bl ene ss of

t he det ent i on i ncl ude t he nat ur e o f t he cr i m e u nde ri nve st i gat i on, t he d e g ree ofsu s p ic ion , the loc a tion o f the s top , the t im e ofda y, t h e nu m b e r o f s u s p e c ts p res e n t, a n d t h e r e a c tion ofea c h su s p e c t. S e e A kins v. S tate , 2 0 2 S
. W
. 3 d a t8 8 5 ( c i t i ng I llinois v. W ar dlow , 5 2 8 U .S
. 1 1 9 , 1 2 4 -25 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 67 3 , 1 4 5 L.E d .2d 57 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ))
. Th e offic e r’s o p inio n , w h ile n o t d e term ina tive , is a n o the r fa c tor to be co n s ide red
. Amor es , 816 S. W
. 2d at 413
. Al so veryi m port anti s w het her t he of f i cers a ct ual l yco ndu ct ed an i nve st i gat i on aft er s e izing t h e su s p e c t. Bur kes , 8 3 0 S .W .2d at 9 2 5 ; M o o re , 25 S. W
. 3d at38 6. Base d on the i nformati on k now n t o the off ic ers i nv est ig ati ng the burg lar y at the Ful ford resi dence , g athered by Serg eant W ims as a resul t of the Burg lar y U nit s o ng oin g inv est ig ati on of Marti nezJunior and the obser

v ati ons of Det ect iv e Thompson, we find t heD et ect i v e T hom pson st opped t he SU V pur suantt o r adi o cal l s descr i bi ng t he su spect s i n a f el ony 10 bur gl ar yas t hr ee Hi spani c m al es dr i v i ng a m ar oon Expedi t i on t hat coul d be l ocat ed at t he a ddr ess wher e t he SU V ul t i m at el yst opped
. W hen t her e has b een som e coo per at i on a m ong t he p ol i ce off i cer s, t he c um ul ati ve i nf orm ati on known t o t he co oper at i ng o ff i cer s att he t i m e of t he st op i s t o be consi der ed i n de t er m i ni ng w h e th e r re a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n e x i s ts
. H o a g v . S ta te , 72 8 S
. W
. 2d 37 5, 38 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 87 ). M ore ove r, th e d e te r m in a tio n o fr e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n i s n o t l i m i t e d to th e f a c ts s o le ly w ith in th e d e ta in in g o ff ic e r ’s k n o w l e d g e . See St at e v. Jenn ings , 9 5 8 S
. W
. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 3 ( T e x .A p p .– A m a r illo 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t. ) . R e a s o n a b le suspi ci on ca n al so be base d on i nf or m at i on r el ay ed t o on e off i cerbyot heroff i c ers a nd t he su m of t he i n fo rm a ti o n k n o w n to th o s e o ff ic e r s c o o p e ra ti n g w i th h i m . S e e F e a ra n c e v . S ta te , 771 S. W
. 2d 4 86, 509 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 8 8 ), cert
. den ied , 4 9 2 U .S . 9 2 7 , 1 0 9 S .C t. 3 2 6 , 1 9 6 L .E d .2 d 6 1 1 (1 9 8 9 ).

T h e c o n tin u a tio n o f a te m p o r a r y d e te n tio n m a y b e ju s tif ie d b y e ff o r ts to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e v ic tim 11 or a wi t ne s s c an i de nti fy t he s us pe c t. C la rk e v . S ta te , 78 5 S
. W
. 2d 86 0, 86 9 (T ex . A pp . –F ort W ort h 1 99 0), a f f’d , 8 1 1 S .W .2 d 9 9 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 1 ), cert
. den ied , 502 U
. S. 946, 112 S. C t
. 390 , 116 L. Ed. 2d 3 40 ( 1991) ( ci t i ng M a y s v . S ta te , 72 6 S
. W
. 2d 93 7, 94 4 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 86 ) ( en b anc ))
. 19 pol i ce act ed wi t hi n con st i t ut i ona l par am et ers of a r eas ona bl e i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on. See, 10 e.g., Gai nes v. State , 888 S.W .2d 5 04, 5 09 ( Tex .App. –El Pas o 19 9 4 , n o pet. ) (fin din g re asona ble su spi ci on w here off ic er sa w two bl ack

mal es in a y ell ow Ho n d a C ivi c o n a cer tai n road after

recei v ing a radi o broadca st th a t two bl ack mal es had c ommitt ed a burglary on l y mi nu te s be fore, an d fl ed i n a l at e mo de l y el l ow H on da C i v i c an d w ere last seen t rav eling so uth o n the same road). App ellant ‘s dete ntion was reaso nab ly related in scope to the circumsta nces th at justif ied th e inte rferen ce at th e ou tset a nd last ed o nly so lon g as was re asona bly nec ess ar

y to inc lud e, or

ex cl ude, him as a suspect. After obta ini ng c o n fl i ct i n g re s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n s re l a t e d t o t h e i r p r i o r w h e re a b o u t s a n d o w n e rs h i p of proper ty i n the SU V, Appel lan t w as detai ned unti l Ful ford and Vel asq uez coul d be broug ht to t he s cene. After

F ulford and Vel asq uez pla ced the maroon SU V and Ma rt ine zJu nio r 11 at the Fulford reside nce at the time of the burglary , suf f icient probab le caus e fo r a rrest ex is ted, and Ap pel lan t was ar re ste d.20

W e f ind the durati on of the sto p w as re asona ble and the o ff ic ers d il ig entl y pursued a means of inv est ig ati on th at was li kel y to dis pel or

co nfir m thei r sus pic ion s a s q uic kl y as possib le
. S e e Josey, 9 8 1 S. W .2d a t 840 -4 1 ( nin ety min ute d etent ion reason abl e)
. The SU V was sto pped atapprox imat ely 12:3 0 p.m. By

1:23 p.m., the SU V and Ma rt ine zJu nio r had bee n i denti fied, a nd th e three men arrest ed w ere in th e proces s o f being transpo rt ed to j ail
. Dur ing th is p e rio d of ti me, th e off ic ers s topped Appel lan t, sec ured th e s cene, iden tif ied the three me n, q uest ione d the m regarding the ir w here abo uts an d ow nersh ip in t e re s tin t h e S UV , co n c lu d e d t h e id e n t if ic a t io n p ro c e s s wit h F u l fo rd a n d V e la s qu e z, arrested the th ree m en, and inv ent oried th e SUV’s cont ent s. T h e fo rce D e tec tive T h o m p s o n e m p loye d d u ring the d e ten tion w a s a ls o r e a s o n a b le u n d e rt h e c i r cu m st a n ce s. De t e ct i ve T h o m p so n a ct e d a l o n e when h e s t o p p e d a n SUV a n ticip a ted t o c o n tain a t le a s t thre e s u s p e c ts in a f e lon y b u rgla ry . T h e S U V ’s w ind o w s we re t i nt ed and st opp ed ati t s d est i nat i on, a ho use w i t h two w i ndo ws faci ng t he st r eet–cu rt ai ns dr aw n. I n h i s e xpe r i enc e a nd t r ai ni ng, he t r eat ed t he st op as a “ hi gh r i sk f el onyst op” be cau se burgl ars a r e k now n t o b e a r m ed. He w as al so con cer ned for hi s safet y bec aus e he di d n ot k n o w ho w m a n y o c c u p a n ts w e re in the S U V , w h e the r the y h a d we a p o n s , a n d wh e the r the re w e re p e rso n s in the ho u s e t h a t m igh t a ls o be arm e d
. A fte r th e S U V ’s o c c u p a n ts w e re lyin g o n th e g ro u n d , D e te c tiv e T h o m p s o n k e p t a n e ye on t he SU V and t he house whi l e Offi cerCalder on handcuffe d App el l antand hi s two p a s s e n g e rs. Th e t h ree we re th e n pa tt e d -do w n after wh ic h D e tec tive Th o m p s o n vis u a lly swe ptt he SU V f r om ou t si de t o a ssu r e t her e w er e n o o t her pa sse ng ers. As he di d s o, he21

obs erved a v ideo cam er a a nd gam i ng dev i ce i n t he f r ontf l oor boa r d o f t he pas sen ger

si de. W h e n t h e sc e n e wa s se c u red , D e tec tive T h o m p s o n pla c e d t h e t h ree m e n in the ba c k s e a ts of separat e pat r ol car s for sa f et yr eas ons an d t o m ai nt ai n t he stat us quo . He qu est i one d t hem r ega r di ng t hei ri den t i t i es, t he SUV ’ s o wn ershi p, t hei rw her eab out s t hatda y , w her e t heyl i ved , a n d wh e the r a n yon e w a s in t h e ho u s e . A fte r rec e iv ing inc o n s is ten t e x p lan a tion s oft h e ir wh er eab out s a nd t he ow nershi p o f prope r t y o n t he f l oor boa r d, he ce ase d q ues t i oni ng and a w a ited t h e arriva l of

Fu lfo rd a n d V e las q u e z. W e f i nd Det ect i ve Tho m pso n’ s n eed for of f i cer safet yand t o m ai nt ai n t he stat us quo dur i ng t he i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on r eas onable. H e wa s o ut num ber ed att he out setan d at t em pt i ng t o i ni t i at e an i nve st i gat i on i n an ope n a r ea wh er e h e c oul d e asi l ybe t ar get ed f r om t he SU V’ s t i nt ed wi ndo ws or t he r esi den ce l i nke d t o t he sus pec t s. Aft er he se cur ed t he ar ea, he con duc t ed an i nve st i gat i on app r opr i at e t o a n i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on. He hel d App el l ant onl yso l ong a s w as nec ess aryt o e l i m i nat e o rve r i fyhi m as a sus pec t
. Aft er F ul for d a nd Ve l a sq u e z i d e n t i f i e d t h e SUV a n d Mart i n e z Ju n i o r , t h e t h r e e m e n w e r e a r r e st e d a n d t h e SUV i m pou nde d. The en t i r e d et ent i on t ook a l i t t l e l ess t han an ho ur . On t hi s r eco r d, w e f i nd Appel l ant ’ s d et ent i on was r ea so nab l e u nde rt he ci r cum st anc es and t he t r i al co urtdi d n ot abu se i t s d i scr et i on i n d eny i ng Appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s upp r ess ev i den ce due t o a n i l l ega l a rr e s t. A p p e llan t’s s e v e n th is s u e p e rt a inin g t o t h e t rial c o u rt ’s ov e rr u ling ofhis m o tion t o sup pr ess i s o ver r ul ed.22

II. Unw arned State ment Ap p e l l a n tn e xta s s e rt s t h e t r i a l c o u rti mp ro p e r l y p e r mi tt e d t h e S t a t e t o o ffer ev ide nce of his unwar ned sta tement that he w as the S UV ’s ow ner bec ause, at the t ime the unwar ned s tatementwa s m a d e , h e was in cus tody and the s ubj ectof a c ust odi al int er ro g ati on. He cont ends the t ri al cour t admitt ed the unw ar ned state ment in v iol ati on of t h e d i ct a t e s o f Mi

ra nda, supr

a, and ar ti cl e 38. 22 of the Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re . For pur poses of anal ysi s, w e w il l ass ume w it hout deci din g er ro r in the admis si on of Appel lan t’ s sta tement and proceed direct ly to the h ar m anal ysi s. See C ole m an v . St ate , 188 S. W .3d 7 08, 7 26 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2005, pet. ref’d) ( ass uming er ro r in admis si on of com pla i ne d- of e v i de nc e an d ad dres s i ng a pp el l an t’ s c on te nt i on t ha t er ror was h ar mful ). Beca use a correct ruling in this instan t is constitut iona lly required u nde r Mi

ra nda ; see Dick er son v. United S tates , 530 U. S. 428, 439- 40, 120 S.C t. 2326, 147 L.Ed. 2d 405 (2 000) , t he er ro r is co nst it uti onal er ro r; Al for d v. State , 22 S.W .3d 6 69, 6 73 (T ex.App. –Fort W o rt h 2 0 0 0 , p e t
. re f’d ), a n d R u le 4 4
. 2 (a ) is a p p li c a b le
. T e x. R. A p p . P
. 4 4
. 2 (a ). T h u s , we ev alu ate t he ent ire record i n a n eutral, i mpart ial , and ev en- handed manner , not i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the p ro sec uti on; Ha r r i s v . S tate, 790 S.W .2d 5 68, 5 86 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) ; Kane v

. St ate , 173 S.W .3d 589 , 594 (Tex.App .–Fo rt W orth 20 05, no pe t.), and must re v erse unl ess we det er mine beyond a re asona ble doubtthater ro r did not cont ri bute to Appel lan t’ s c onv icti on or puni shment
. Alford , 22 S.W .3d a t 673
.Al t hough Vel asquez ’ s t est i m onyatt r i al and hi s st atem ent s t o po l i ce off i cer s att he sce ne o ft he 12 bur gl ar yapp ear ed t o eq ui v ocat e r egar di ng t he n um berof per sons h e saw l eav i ng t he Ful f or d r esi dence i n t he S U V a n d w h e re th e yw e re p o s i ti o n e d i n s i d e th e v e h i c l e , a ju ry i s in th e b e s t p o s i ti o n to e v a l u a te th e c re d i b i l i ty o f w i tn e s s e s , a n d w e a re re q u i re d to a ff o rd “d u e d e fe re n c e ” to ju ry d e te rm i n a ti o n s . M a rs h a ll v . S ta te , 210 S. W
. 3d 6 18, 625 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 0)
. “ A j ur y i s t he excl usi v e j udge oft he cr edi bi l i t yof wi t nesses and of t he wei ght t o be gi v en t hei rt est i m on y ; ” B a r n e s v . S ta te , 87 6 S
. W
. 2d 31 6, 32 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 94 ) c e rt. denied , 513 U
. S. 861 , 115 S. C t
. 174 , 130 L. Ed. 2d 1 10 ( 1994) , and “ r econci l i at i ons o fconf l i ct s i n t he e v i dence i s w i t hi n t he ex c l us i ve p rovi nc e o f t he j ury . ” L o s a d a v . S ta te , 72 1 S
. W
. 2d 30 5, 30 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 86 ). 23 Appel lan t c ontendst h e S ta te us ed hi s u nw ar ned admi ss ion , t hat h e ow ned t he SUV, to link him t o the b urglary
. A side f rom th e un w arne d stat em ent , the State ’s ev iden ce showed th at ( 1) the pol ic e had re cei v ed anon y mous tip s that Appel lan t’ s son was involv ed in burg lar iesand w as attempt ing to sel l sto len proper ty ; ( 2) Appel lan t had been obser v ed numerous ti mes atthe re si dence on 65 Streetw it h his son and the SUV; ( 3) on t he day th of the burg lar

y , Ap pel lan t was dr iv ing the SU V w hen D etecti v e Thompson made the st op app rox ima tel y

a n ho ur a fte r t he b urg l ar

y was rep or

te d; ( 4)t he S U V c on ta i ne d bu rg l ary tool s i n and around t he c onsol e betw een t he dr iv er ’s and fr o n t p a ss eng er ’s se ats ; ( 5) sto len proper

ty f ro m a s econd burg lar

y thatoc cur re d near by

thatmor nin g was ly ing on t he front floor board on the pass eng er si de of t he SU V in cl ear v iew ; ( 6) Appel lan t’ s v ersi on of how he c ame to be dr iv ing the SU V at the ti me of the s top a nd hi s s on’ s v ersi on c onfli cte d; (7 ) Appel lan t’ s v ersi on of how the st ole n items in the floor board c ame to be i n the SU V and hisso n’sv ersi on al so confli cte d; ( 8) Vel asq ueztol d pol ic e he obser v ed tw o H is pani c mal es jum p into a mo v i ng SU V i n th e al l ey w ay ; ( 9) Ve l as q ue z an d th e v i cti m pl ac ed the SUV 12 and Appell ant’ s son at the scene of the burg lar y ; (10)the v icti m als o place d Appe ll ant’ s s on at th e bu rg led reside nce sev eral days before; (11 ) the v ictim’s broth er placed Appe llant’s son, hi s p ic kup, and an unk now n dr iv er at the v icti m’s re si dence sev eral days b efore t he24

bu rg l ar y ; an d, ( 12 ) Trev i no , a pa s s en g er i n th e SU V be i ng d r i v en b y A pp el l an t att he t i me of the s top, had s tol en proper ty on h is person from a s econd burglary thatoc cur re d tha t morni ng . Hav ing rev iewed th e ent ire record, we f ind bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatthe error did notcontribu te to Appe llant’s con v iction. Ap pellan t’s third and fo u rt h i ssues a re ov er ru led
. III . Ext ran eou s Of

fe nse App ellantnext asserts the trial cou rt erred by adm itting extrane ous o ffense ev iden ce of t he Por ras b urg l ar

y t ha t oc c ur red t he s am e mo r ni ng a s t he F ul ford bu rg l ar y . He cont ends it s a dmis si on v iol ated Rul es 404( b) and 403 bec ause the e v ide nce w as ir re levant a n d o v e r l y p rej u d i c i a l
. H e a l s o a s s e rt s t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d i n i t s a d mi s s i o n becau se the Stat e fail ed to prov e the Por ra s b urg lar y beyond a re asona ble doubt
. As a g eneral ru le, to prev ent an ac cus ed from b ein g prosec uted for s ome co ll ateral cr ime or mis condu ct, the Stat e may not int ro duce ev ide nce of bad acts si mil ar to the offense charg ed. Rob er ts v. State , 29 S.W .3d 596, 600- 01 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st 200 0, pe t. ref ’d). Rule 4 04(b ) pro v ides tha t evidence of “other crimes, w rongs or acts” is not a dmis si ble to prov e a d efendant’ s c haracte r in o rd e r to s how acti on i n c onformi ty therew it h. Nev erthel ess , suc h ev ide nce may “b e admis si ble for other pur poses , s uch as proof of motiv e, op por

tuni ty , i ntent , preparati on, p lan , k now led g e, ide nti ty , or absen ce of mista ke or accide nt.” T ex. R. Evi d. 404 (b). In add ition, a “party ma y in trodu ce evidence of othe r cr ime s, w rongs, or acts if such evidence logi ca ll y s e rves to ma ke mo re or less25

probabl e an ele mental fact, an ev ide nti ar y fact that inferenti all y

l eads to an el emental fact, or defensive ev ide n c e thatund ermin es an elem ent al fact.” Ma rt in v. State , 173 S.W .3d 463 , 466 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5). W hether extraneous of

fe n se ev ide nce has re levance apar t from charact er confor mity , as req uired by R ule 404( b) , i s a q uest ion for the tri al cour t. Mo ses v. Sta te , 105 S.W
. 3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 7 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
. S o , t o o , i s a r u l i n g o n t h e b a l a n c e betw een prob ative v alue and the cou nte rv ailing fa ctors set ou t in Rule 403 , altho ugh tha t bala nce is always sl anted toward admis si on of other w is e rele v ant e v ide nce. De La Pa z v. Sta te , 2 7 9 S
. W
. 3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 3 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). T h u s , we re v ie w a t ria l co u rt’s d e c is io n t o a d m it e x tra n e o u s o ff e n s e s u n d e r a n a b u s e -o f - d is c re tio n sta n d a rd ; P rib le v. S ta te , 17 5 S .W .3 d 7 2 4 , 7 3 1 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), c er t
. de nied , 54 6 U. S. 9 62 , 1 26 S. Ct
. 48 1, 16 3 L .E d .2 d 3 6 7 (2 0 0 5 ), a n d , s o lo n g a s th e tria l c o u rt’s ru lin g is w ith in t h e zo n e o f re a s o n a b le di s agr eement , t her e i s no ab us e o f di s c r et i on and t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng wi l l be up hel d. M o n tg o m e r

y v . S ta te , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 1 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). Se e H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , 2 0 5 S .W .3 d 5 5 5 , 5 5 8 (T e x .A p p .--A m a rillo 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f’d ). W here t he charge is b urglary with int entt o com mit the f t, the o f fense is com plete if the entry is mad e w ith the requisite intent , regardless of w he the r a theft is actually commi tted
. Moore , 54 S.W .3d a t 539
. He re, w e conclu de evidence of the Po rras burglary w as admis si ble to show the int ent w it h w hic h “e ntr y ” w as made i nto t he F ulford resi dence , i. e., i ntent t o commit t heft. The P or ra s b urg lar y was cl ose in ti me and l ocat ion to the26

Ful ford burg lar

y and subs eq uent sto p on 65 Street. Mor e o ver, the SU V dr iv en by th Appel lan t c ontai ned proper ty stol en f ro m the Por ra s res ide nce but no proper ty stol en from the F ulford resi dence
. Thus, ev ide nce of the Por ra s b urg lar y was re levant un der

R ule s 401 and 404( b) to est abl is h an ele mental fact, i.e., i ntentto commi t t heft. See, e.g., Banda v. State , 768 S.W .2d 294 , 296 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 9) c er t
. de nied , 4 9 3 U .S
. 9 2 3 , 1 1 0 S .C t. 2 9 1 , 1 0 7 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 7 0 ( 198 9) ( “a n extraneo us transa ction wi ll be adm issible so long as it logically tend s to ma ke the ex istence of some fact of conse quence mo re or less probab le”). W e mustnext co n sider w hether the unfair

preju dic ial effectof the e xtraneous ev ide nce subs tanti all y

outweig hed i ts probati v e v alu e and, i n doi ng s o , we g iv e g re at deferenc e to the tr ial court ’s determi nati on of admiss ibi li ty
. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391- 92. H ere, an y

preju dic ial effectof admitti ng the e xtra n e ous offense ev ide nce w as ou twei g he d by

it s prob at i v e v al ue . The ev i de nc e of th e Po r ras burg l ar y w as nea r

in t i me and l ocat ion to the F ulford burg lar y and neces sa ry fo r the jur y to cons ide r in it s deter min a tion w hether the entr

y i nto t he F ulford resi dence was for th e pur pose of commi tti ng theft. Thus, we ag re e w it h the tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion thatev ide nce of the Por ra s b urg lar

y was not s o eg re g iou s a s t o be hig hly preju dic ial
. Fi nal ly , w hether

an e xtraneous offe n se or bad acti s e sta bli shed beyond a re asona ble doubti s a q uest ion of fact for the j ur y , nota preli minar

y q uest ion of admis si bil ity

for the t ri al cour

t. Mitch ell

v. Sta te , 931 S.W .2d 9 50, 9 53- 54 ( Tex .C ri m.App.Al t hough t he t r i al cour t i s t he so l e au t hor i t yon t he t hr eshol d i ssue o f adm i ssi bi l i t yof r el ev ant 13 ev i dence, t he j ur ydet er m i nes whet hert he b ur den of pr oofof

ext r aneou s off enses pr esent ed h as be en s a ti s fie d
. N a n e z, 179 S. W
. 3d a t 152
. 27 1996)
. See N

anez v. Sta te , 179 S.W .3d 149 , 151 -52 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2005 , no pe t.). 13 Once all of

the evidence was in, the trial court prope rly in s tructe d the jury

that , before it could co nside r extrane ous a ct evi den ce in its dete rmina tion o f g uilt or innoce nce, it must be s ati sfied beyond a re asona ble doubtthatthe act s a re att ri butabl e to the d efendant. Here, t he tr ial co urt di d exact ly w hat i s req uired w hen c onsi der ing the iss u e of extraneous offenses . See Jor dan v. State , 271 S.W .3d 850 , 855 -56 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 200 8, no pet. ). Conse quently, th e trial co urt did no t abu se its discretion in adm itting this ev ide nce. Ap pel lan t’ s fifth a nd s ixth i ss ues are ov er ru led
. IV. Leg al an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy W hen app ell ant c hal lenges both leg al and factu al suffici ency , we are req uired to condu ct an anal ysi s o f the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce firs t and then , onl y i f w e find the e v ide nce to be leg all y suffici ent, do w e anal yz e the factual suffici ency of the e v ide nce. Clewis v. Sta te , 922 S.W .2d 1 26, 1 33 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce, we rev iew al l the e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict t o dete rm ine w hether any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial ele ments of t he offense beyond a reason abl e doubt
. Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) ; Hooper v. Sta te, 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (T ex. 2007 ).28

In a factual su ff ic ien cy re v iew , w e must cons ide r all of t he ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht to de term ine w het her a jury w as ration ally ju s t if ie d i n f inding guilt bey ond a reason able doubt. See Watson v. State, 204 S .W .3d 4 04, 4 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 200 6). I n ou r analysis w e mu st det ermin e w het her the ev iden ce sup portin g the v erdict is so w eak o r so against the g reat weig ht an d p re p o nde rance of the evidence as to rend er the verdict man ifestly unj ust
. See Steadm an v. State, 280 S. W .3d 2 42, 2 46 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2009)
. A w ro ng and unj ustverd icti n cl udes ins tanc es in w hic h the j ur y ’s findi ng s “ shoc ks the cons ci ence, ” or cl ear ly demons trates bi as. See G ro tti v. Sta te, 273 S. W .3 d 273, 280 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. In do ing a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , we mustbe m in d f u l th a t a jur y has al re ady pass ed on the fact s a nd mus t gi v e due deferenc e to the deter minat ion s o f the j ur y . See Lanco n v. St

ate, 253 S.W .3d 699, 704- 05 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. If our dec is ion i s t o s et asi de th e v erdict of the j ur y , our opi nio n s houl d c lea rl y

ex pla in how

the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdict i s t oo weak on i ts ow n or how the cont ra dicti ng ev ide nce so g re atl y outweig hs the ev ide nce in suppo rtof the v erdict. See i d. Con v ersel y , i f our deci si on i s t o uphol d a v erdi ct, we are req ui red t o c on s i de r t he mo s t i mp or

ta nte v i de nc e th att he a pp el l an t c l ai ms u n d e rm in e s t h e j u ry' s ve rd ic ta n d e xp la in wh y t h a te vid e n c e d o e s n o th a ve t h e p e rs u a s ive force the a ppel lan t bel iev es is su ff ic ien t t o ov ertur n the v erdict. See Sim s v . St ate, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). In a suf f iciency of

the evidence rev iew , the essen tial elem ent s of the of fense are thos e of a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y cha rge fo r the offense in q uest ion ( i. e. , one that acc uratel y

se ts out t he l aw

and adeq uatel y

des cr ibe s t he offense for w hic h the appel lan t29

w as tr ied w it hout inc re asi ng the sta te’ s b urden of proof or rest ri cti ng the st ate’ s t heor y of criminal respo nsibility.) Hooper , 214 S. W .3d a t 14; Ma li k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 34, 2 40 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alo ne is suffici ent to est abl is h the g uil t of t he ac cus ed and the s tandard of rev iew

as to the s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce is the same for both directand ci rc u m st a n ti a l e videnc e c ases . Hooper , 214 S. W .3d a t 13. Ea ch fact need not poi nt direct ly and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of t he ac cus ed, s o l ong as the cumul ati v e forc e of all t h e e vid e nce, w hen coup led w ith reaso nab le inferen ces to be draw n the ref rom, is suffici ent to suppor

t the c onv icti on. Evan s v . St ate, 202 S.W .3d 1 58, 1 66 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 6). Appel lan t as ser

ts the e v ide nce at tr ial w as leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent b ecaus e, alt houg h the bac k d oor

of the resi dence was ki ck ed in, there was no te sti monial or physi cal ev ide nce that anyone act ual ly ente re d the F ulford resi dence or took any proper ty from t hat re si dence
. Mo re spec ific all y , Appel lan t cont ends there w as no ev ide nce that the “ cl ose” of the F ulford resi dence was broken. A person commi ts the sec ond deg re e felony offense of burg lar

y i f he or sh e enters a habi tati on, w it hout the c onsen t of the ow ner , w it h the intent to c ommit a felony , t heft or an as saul t. Emphas is added. See T ex. Pen al Code Ann
. § 30. 02(a ), (c)( 2) (Verno n 20 03). A person “e nters” a habi tati on if he or she int ru des any par t of t hei r body , or

any physi cal obj ect conne cte d to thei r body
. Id. at § 30.02( b)
. “E ntr y ” is es tabl is hed w hen t he pl ane of the o peni ng of the h ouse is broken, and maybe a cc ompli shed by pl aci ng a foot i nsi de a30

door frame, by

cu tti ng w ind ow

or door sc re ens, or

by break ing a door

l ock or frame. See Or tega v. State , 6 2 6 S
. W
. 2 d 7 4 6 , 7 4 7 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ( c o n c lu d in g t h e re wa s “e n t ry” w hen ev ide nce showed s creen doo r lat ch was pul led off , w o o d e n door’ s k nob was dis abl ed, and pr

y marks were on wooden d oor ). See al so Mo or e v . St ate , 54 S.W .3d 5 29, 539- 40 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 2001, pe t. re f’d) ( tes ti mony of 11- y ear-o ld v icti m that defen da nt “ en te red ” th e ho us e by pl ac i ng hi s foo t i n th e do or w i th i nt en t to en g ag e in sex ual co ntact w it h the v icti m hel d factual ly suffici ent to s uppor t c onv icti on for burg lar

y of a habi tati on) ; W

il li am s v . St ate , 997 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 17 ( Tex .App. –Beaumont1999, no p et.) (e v ide nce o f b ro k e n p a d l o c ka n d b ro k e n d o o r fra me o n g a ra g e e s t a b l i s h e d e n t r y i nto bui ldi ng as req uired for burg lar y of bui ldi ng ); Wo o ds

v . S tate , 814 S. W .2d 2 13, 2 15- 16 (Tex .App. –Ty ler

1991, no p et.)( homeow ner ’s tes ti mony thatfour w ind ow

sc re e n sa n d door sc re en had been c ut, alo ng w it h pol ic e off ic er ’s tes ti mony that defendant w as apprehended near by w it h a k nife i n hi s h and, w as suffici ent e v ide nce of accu sed’ s “ entr y ” int o habi tati on) ; Hay

es v. State , 656 S .W .2d 9 26, 9 27 (Te x .Ap p.– East land 1 983 , no pe t.) (jury could prope rly

infer “entry” f rom p resen ce of lug w rench a n d hole in th e roof of a store). Thus, entr

y ca n be any

breach of the “ cl ose” of the resi dence
. The entry

el ement of a b urg lar

y offense maybe p ro v en by i nferenc es, j ustas inferences may be used to prov e the ele ments of an y other offense. Lopez v. State , 884 S.W .2d 9 18, 9 21 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1994, pet. ref’d)
. Mo re ov er , Se cti on 30. 02 “ does not re q uire proof of a com p le te d t heft; al l that needs to be s how n i s a n attem pt to commi t a felon y or theft.” W

il lia ms , 997 S.W .2d a t 418 ( emphasi s a dded)
.31

At t ri al, F ulford tes ti fied s he heard two loud bang s, then a crac ki ng noi se, and she thoug ht s omeone was in the h ouse. O ff ic er W int ers t est ified there was a shoe pri nt on the back door

and, i n hi s o pin ion , th e d oor had been k ic ked in or sh oul dered open w it h suf f icient force to te ar the dea dbo lt f rom the door jam b. His photo graph s showed the b ack door opened i nto t he hous e w it h the deadbo lttor n from the j amb, dan g li ng from t he crack ed door

frame. F ulford’sg ra ndfather tes ti fied th e door

was “t otal lyb lo wn o f

f” and “ev erything w as bu sted on the doo r.” T his testim ony along w ith Of f icer W inters’s pho tograph s were suf

f icient for the jury to f ind beyond a rea sona ble dou bt th at som e pa rt of the burg lar’s body , presumabl y eit her a shoul der or foot, breache d the pl ane, or “ cl ose, ” of the F ulford resi dence thereby es tabl is hin g the ele ment of “entr y .” Acc ordin g ly , hav ing re v iewed th e ent ire re co rd , we find t hat t he j ur y ’s findi ng s were rati onal and the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce suppo rt s, ra ther than co ntradi cts , the v erdict. See Wil li am s, 997 S.W .2d at 417 (“ the act ion of breaki ng the loc k a nd door frame was the ‘breaki ng of the c los e’” ). Ap pel lan t’ s first and s econd i ss ues are ov er ru led
. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med. Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Ju sti ce Publ is h.