NO. 07-08 -007 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER17, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BIL LY G. IVEY, JR., APPEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 7-41 624 4; HON. BRADLE Y S. UNDERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Bi ll y

G. Iv ey , J r. appeals f ro m hi s j ur y co nv icti on for burg lar

y of a habi tati on w it h i ntentto commi t t heft and t he resul ti ng se ntenc e of life impri sonment . Throug h three is sues , app ell ant c ontends the ev ide nce w as leg all y insuffici ent (1) to suppo rthi s c onv icti on and ( 2) to suppo rtthe jur y ’s findi ng of “t ru e” to the s econd enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph i n the ind ictment, and cont ends (3 ) his tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for f ail ing to file a pretr ialSee Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 30.02( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 3)

. 1 In hi s c all , H all repor

ted h e “ did not see [the int ru der ’s ] face,” it w as “d ar k” and t he 2 intrud er w as “outsid e be fore I saw him .” In addition to the aud io recording of the 91 1 call, the e v ide nce at t ri al inc lud ed recordin g s t aken by pol ic e pat ro l car

v ide o recorders. 2 moti on to su ppress appel lan t’ s i denti ficat ion

. Fi ndi ng the evidence l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o supp ort app ellant ’s convi ction, w e reverse and rend er a judgme nt of acquittal. Back g ro und Throug h a M ay

2007 ind ictment, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h “ int enti onal ly , w it hout the effect iv e cons ent of C li nton Hal l, the ow ner thereof, enter [i ng ] a habi tati on with in tent to c ommit theft.” The i ndi ctmentalso cont ain ed tw o enhan cementparag ra phs set ti ng forth 1 appel lan t’ s tw o pr ior

final felony

co nv icti ons. Fo llow ing appel lan t’ s p lea of not g uil ty , t he ma tter proce ede d to jury trial. At tr i al , th e St at e pres en te d ev i de nc e th rou g h th e te s ti mo ny o f s ev eral w i tn es ses, inc lud ing the compl ain ant a nd pol ic e off ic ers, to s how thatat about mid n igh t on Apr il 25, 2007, Cl int on H all and his g ir lfri end, Chel sea Gar z a, prepared to g o to sl eep i n the residen ce w here they li v ed wi th Garza’s moth er and her f riend. Hall and Garz a he ard the ir dog s b ar ki ng , hea rd ac ti v ity i n the l iv ing room, and sa w the knob on th eir

bedroom door mo v e. Hall open ed th e be droo m do or a nd saw an unkn own intrud er in t he hou se w ith his back to Hal l. H all ch ased the i ntr uder out of the h o u se, then g ot i nto a ca r and s earched for th e i ntr uder

. W hen he did not find hi m, he re tur ned home and c all ed th e pol ic e. 23

Police resp ond ed, imm edia tely cond ucting a search of the area. W hen his search w as unsuc ces sful, the re spond ing off ic er re tur ned to the re si dence and spok e w it h H all and Gar z a. As Hal l w as speak ing w it h the of ficer in the home’s dri v ew ay , the of ficer saw a w hit e pic k- up tr uck

w it h the headl ig hts off

sl ow ly approach from the direct ion the subj ectran after lea v ing H all ’s home. Itappeared to the off ic er thatw hen t he dri v er

saw the pol ic e car, he tur ned on the h eadl ig hts and tookoff su ddenl y . The off ic er

pursued the t ru ck

i n hi s p atrol car but the t ru ck

fail ed to st op. After a chas e, t he dr iv er abando ned t he tr uck , l eav ing i ts d o o rs lo ck e d an d its en gin e run n in g. Informati on i nsi de th e truc k led off ic ers to appell ant’ s near by resi dence

. Appel lan t answ ered th e door

cl ad onl y

i n box er short s a nd to ld off ic ers h e had been “ dead as lee p.” Police bro ught Hall and Garz a to ap pellan t’s residence , w here they rem aine d in the back of the poli ce car

w hil e appel lan t w as broug ht ou t i n handc uffs, sti ll w ear ing onl y hi s b ox er shor ts. H all tol d off ic ers a ppel lan t “ fits ourd e sc ript ion v er y , v er y cl osel y .” Ap pel lan t w as ar re ste d. App ellantpresen ted his case throu gh cross-ex am inatio n of the St at e’s w itnesse s, dur ing w hic h he hig hli g hted the a bsenc e of ev ide nce tendi ng to conne ct him w it h the burg lar y . Appel lan t contend ed he w as not t he i ndi v idu al w ho burg lar iz ed H all ’s resi dence

. After hear ing the ev ide nce, the jur y found ap p e lla nt g uil ty as ch arg ed i n the ind ictment, found the e n h a n ce m e nt al leg ati ons tr ue, a nd s entenc ed hi m to l ife i n pr is on. Appel lan t t imel y

appeal ed.Ot her modes of commi tti ng burg lar y w ere notch arg ed here. See Tex . Pe nal C ode 3 Ann . § 30. 02(a )(2), ( 3) (Vernon 200 7). 4 Ana ly sis Iss ue On e–Legal

Suf fici ency of Evi denceto Suppor

t Appel lan t’ s C onvicti

on Via ap pellan t’s f irst issue , he co nte nds th e evidence is l egally insuf f icient to supp ort his conviction. As charged in the in dictm ent , to esta blish tha t app ellantcomm itted burglary of a habi tati on, t he St ate h ad to prov e tha t: (1 ) appel lan t; (2 ) entere d a h a b it ati on; ( 3) w it hout the eff ect iv e consentof the o w ner ; and ( 4) w it h i ntentto commi t a theft. Tex . Pe nal 3 Code Ann. § 30.0 2(a)(1) (Vernon 200 7). Appe llant’s cha llenge focuse s on the proof of his iden tity as the burglar. In c onduc ti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , w e mustdete rmi ne w hether , after rev iew ing the ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e p ro s e c u tion, any ration al trier of fact cou ld h a ve found t he es sent ial el ements of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jackson v. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 18- 19, 1 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 6 1 L .E d .2 d 560 (1 979) ; Hooper v. Sta te, 214 S. W .3d 9 , 13 (T e x.Cri m .App. 2007) ; Fowler v. Sta te, 65 S .W .3d 1 16, 1 18 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2 001 , no pet .). If , base d on all t he evidence, a reason ably-minde d jury must neces sar il y

ente rt ain a reason abl e doubto f t h e defendant’ s g uil t, due proces s req uires that w e rev erse a nd order a j udg ment of ac q uittal

. Swear ing en v . St ate, 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 9 5 ( T e x.Cr im.A pp. 2 003) , citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 23 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer

t. denied, 507 U. S. 9 75, 1 13 S. Ct

. 1422, 122 L.Ed. 2d 791 ( 1993)

. Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as di re ct ev ide nce in est abl is hin g t h e gu ilt o f an act or and the5

stan dard of

rev iew on app eal is th e sam e for b oth direct and circumsta ntial evidence cases. Guev ar a v . St ate, 152 S.W .3d 4 5, 49 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ; Kutz ner v. Sta te, 994 S.W .2d 180, 184 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999) ; Sm it h v . St ate, 56 S .W .3d 73 9 , 744 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 Dist.] 2001 , no pe t.). th Id e n ti ty m a y be pro ved th ro u gh d ire ctor c irc u m st a n ti a l e vide n c e , an d th ro u gh inferences . Sm it

h, 56 S .W .3d a t 744 ; R o b e r s o n v . Sta te, 16 S .W .3d 1 56, 1 57 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2000, pet. ref’d) ; Ma br a v . St ate, 997 S.W .2d 7 70, 7 74 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 199 9, pet. ref ’d). In a circumsta ntial-evidence case, it is unn ecessa ry for every

fact to pointdirectly

and indep end ent ly

to the defend ant ’s gu ilt; rather, it is suffici ent i f the findi ng of g uil t i s s uppor ted b y the cumul ati v e force of al l the i ncr imi nati ng ev ide nce. Powell

v. Sta te, 194 S.W .3d 5 03, 5 07 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Bear dsley v. State, 738 S. W .2d 6 81, 6 85 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987) ; W hite v . St ate, 702 S.W .2d 2 93, 2 94 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 1985 , no pe t.). As an appe ll ate c our

t, w e are notto re -e v alu ate t he w eig ht a n d c re d ib ili ty of the e vide n ce , b u t onl y

ens ure tha t t he j ur

y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. Mu niz v. Sta te, 851 S.W .2d 2 3 8 , 2 4 6 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 3 )

. A re v i e w i n g c o u rt mu s t g i v e d e fe re n c e to “ the re spons ibi li ty

of the tr ier

of fact t o fair ly

resol v e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to draw reaso nab le inferen ces f rom basic facts to ultima te facts.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 1 3 , qu o ti n g Jacks on , 443 U. S. at 31 8- 19. Und er the Jacks on sta ndard, w e permi t j ur ies to draw multiple rea sona ble inferen ces as long as each inferen ce is suppo rted by ev iden ce present ed attr ial

. Hoop er, 2 14 S.W .3d a t 15. How ever, juri es are no t perm itted to reachThe tr uck ’s ow ner , w ho w as appel lan t’ s employ er , confir med appel lan t had dr iv en 4 t h e t ru c kt h a td a y. 6 conc lus ion s b ased on mere s pecul ati on or fact ual ly uns uppor

ted i nferenc es or p re s u mp ti ons. Id. at 16. W hen w e c onsi der a c ontent ion thata j ur y ’s findi ng bas ed on inferences is n ot s uppor ted b y l eg all y su ff ic ien t ev ide nce, our tas k i s t o det er mine w hether the n eces sar

y i nferenc es are re asona ble based on the combi ned and c umulat iv e forc e of all the ev ide nce w hen v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict. Id . at16- 17. Her e, t o u p h o l d a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n , w e mu s t fi n d t h e S t a t e p ro v e d , b e y o n d a re asona ble doubt, that appell ant is the person w ho committ ed the cri me charg ed. Sm it h, 56 S.W .3d a t 744 , citi

ng Johns on v

. St ate, 673 S.W .2d 190, 196 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) ; Rice v. State, 801 S.W .2d 16, 17 (Tex.App .–Fo rt W orth 19 90, pet. ref ’d). W hile conce ding there is no direct evidence linkin g ap pellan t to Hall’s reside nce, the St ate argues the jury prop erly inferred his guilt from the surrou ndin g facts an d circumst ance s. W e ag re e, an d appel lan t conce des on appeal, that a ra ti onal j ur y co uld hav e i nferred f rom th e evidence presen ted at trial that a ppe llant w as the d riv er o f the white pick-up truck. 4 Thus, ev ide nce est abl is hes appel lan t drov e past the sc ene of t he burg lar y , comi ng from the direct ion the burg lar

ran from Hal l. W hil e a sus pect ’s m ere pres ence at o r near the sc ene of the c ri me does not prov e hi s i nv olv ement i n the crim e , it i s a c ircums tanc e ten din g to prove g uilt w hich, co mb ined w it h o t h er facts, m ay suf f ice to sho w

the accu sed was a p a rt i c ipa nt. Ma b ra , 997 S.W .2d a t 774 ; Rocha v . St ate, 787 S.W .2d 1 36, 1 38 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1990, no p et.)

. See al so B ro o ksv. State, 830 S.W .2d 8 17 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1992, no p et.) ( prox imi ty to a c rim e s cene may be a factor st7

influ enci ng the ex is tenc e of reason abl e s uspi ci on)

. The jur y coul d hav e bel iev ed appe ll ant w as attempt ing to av oid detec ti on by dr iv ing sl ow ly pas t t he resi dence w it h the tr uck ’s l ig hts off . W e a gre e wit h the Sta te al so that appel lan t’ s b ehav ior i n fleei ng from pol ic e at the sc ene of th e c rim e reason abl y l eads to an i nferenc e of g uil t. See Clay ton v . St ate, 235 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 0 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2007) ; Fo ste r v. State, 779 S. W .2d 8 45, 8 59 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) ; Atk ins v. Sta te, N o. 1 4 -0 7- 00051- CR , 200 8 W L 28347 00 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] Ju ly 17, 2 0 0 8 , no pet.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for th pub lication) (a fact f in d e r m a y draw an inferen ce of

g uilt f rom th e circumst ance of f lig ht). T he jury could draw

a similar inferen ce of app ellant ’s conscio usne ss of guilt from ev iden ce of his att empt t o dec eiv e o f f ice rs at hi s resi dence w hen he tol d the m he had been “d ead aslee p.” See, e.g., R obi nson v. State, 236 S.W .3d 2 60, 2 68 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st 2007, pet. re f’d) ( hol din g fli g ht an d us e of fake name admiss ibl e to show consc iou snes s o f guilt). The ju ry

al so heard tes ti mony

there w as no traff icothe r than the w hit e pi ck -u p around H all ’s resi dence at the time of the burg lar y . The resi dence w as loc ated in an area of Lubbock

w it h few

homes , i n te rm ixed w it h c ommerc ial proper ty

. The off ic er

w ho re spond ed to H all ’s 911 cal l sai d he enc ountered “ no ac ti v ity at all ” dur ing hi s s earch of the nei g hbor hood. Hall testif ied on cross examina tion tha t abo ut an hou r elapsed f rom th e time he he ard the n ois e i n hi s h ome unti l he met w it h the of ficer in the driv ew ay . The Stat e s ug g est s t he j ur y c ou l d ha v e di s c ou nt ed t ha t s ta te me nta nd b el i ev ed from t he e v i de nc e tha t th e ti meHall w as no t asked at trial to iden tif y app ellantas the b urglar. 5 8 betw een t he burg lar

y and appel lan t’ s dr iv e past the re si dence w as shor ter

. In any

ev ent, itis cl ear that it w as some time after the b urg lar y thatappel lan t drov e pas t H all ’s resi dence

. T estim ony show ed a ppe llant liv ed in th e sam e g e n e ra l area of tow n, pe rhap s half

a mile from the burg lar iz ed resi dence

. None of thatev iden ce, ho w ever, places ap pellant inside the reside nce a s the bu rg lar. As noted, the Stat e c onced es no di re ct ev ide nce ti es appel lan t t o the resi dence

. The Stat e next poi nts to sta tements H all made t o off ic ers o n t h e n ig ht of the burglary

. Tho se stat em ent s fall short of a positive iden tif ication of app ellantas the b urglar. 5 During the Stat e’s direct examin ation at trial, Hall testif ied as follows conce rning his sta tements w hen he and G arz a v iew ed appe ll ant from the patrol car : Q. ( Pros ec ut or ) And how di d th at–w he n y ou g ot th ere to th e scene , y ou all

stayed in the car? A. (H all ) Ri g ht. Q. And did the y bring the suspe ct out ? How did tha t w ork? A. Theybroug ht the s uspect outi n handc uffs, and t hey broug ht him w it h his face tur ned tow ards us. He w as sta ndin g at the front of t he cr uis er . And they ask ed us if tha t was the gentlem an. And I said th at h e f its our descriptio n v ery , v ery closely. I said I never sa w h is face. I can’t giv e y ou a for sure desc ri pti on. Q. W oul d i t sound a bout ri g ht t hat y ou s aid so methi ng that ’s about

h is b u ild , h is h a irc u t a n d eve ryth in g? A. Y es , ma ’ am . Q. But ag ain , y ou mai ntai n y ou di dn’ t s ee hi m in the face? A. Ri g ht.A pol ice rep o rtm a d e afte r ap p e lla n t’ s a rre stgave hi s p h ysica l d e sc rip ti o n as “5'11", 6 150 pou nds, [s hor

t] brow n hai r, brow n ey es, l ig ht s ki n.” 9 Q. Oka y . But ev er ythi ng that as far

as y our des cr ipt ion g oes and w h a ty o u s a w

i n t h e s u s p e c tt h a tt h e y h a d m a t c h e d–y our desc ri pti on matc hed t he s uspect t hey had? A. Ri g ht. Al so admitted a t t ri al w as a v ide o record in g of H all and Gar

z a as they

v iew ed app ellantf rom th e pa t ro l c a r’ s b ack sea t. Hall’s respo nses to of f icers’ q uest ions are audi ble

. The recordin g co nfir ms t hat H all ’s st atements at tr ial w ere g enerall y cons is tent w it h h is st a t e m e n t s o n t h e n ig h to f t h e b u rg la ry. In ad dit ion , t he j ur

y heard o ff ic ers’ tes ti mony to w hat H all sa id on th e ni g ht of the burglary . One of

f icer testif ied attrial that Hall and Garz a “p o sitiv ely iden tif ied th e subject [appel lan t] as matchi ng the desc ri pti on, the subj ect w ho w as in the re si dence .” The officer also te stif ied th at Hall, w hile sitting in the p atrol car a nd loo king at appe llant, sa id he “looks almos t j ustl ik e the g uy .” Testi mony

sh ow ed th e des cr ipt ion appel lan t matc hed w as th a t given b y H all , w ho had des cri b e d t h e i ntr uder to off ic ers a s a w hit e mal e, ap prox imat ely 5' 10", t hin bui ld, w ear ing bl ue j eans, w it h a s hor t hai rc ut. This des cr ipt ion , w it h s li g ht v ar iat ion s, w as me ntio n e d t h ro u ghout trial. Evidence thatapp ellantv erycloselyf it Hall’s descript ion is prob ative, and ev iden ce t h a t Hall, shortlyaf ter the ev ent s, recogniz ed a ppe llant as very cl osel y fitt ing the desc ri pti on adds to it s p ro bati v e force. If the Stat e’s burden w as onl y to prov e tha t appell ant matched Hal l’ s d esc ri pti on of the burg lar , w e w oul d hav e no difficul ty findi ng the ev ide nce suffici ent. Bu t many peopl e w oul d c los ely f it s u ch a g eneral 6Specu la ti on i s mere the or iz ing or g uess ing aboutthe poss ibl e meani ng of facts 7 and ev ide nce present ed. Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 16. 10 desc ri pti on, a nd th e St ate’ s b urden w as g re ater

. It w as obl ig ed to prov e bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt th at ap pellan t w as the burglar H all saw . Th e evidence of app ellant ’s desc ri pti on, l ocat ion , fli g ht an d dec epti on show appell ant mayhav e been the burg lar , and are c onsi ste nt w it h his ide nti ty as the burg lar

. But infer ri ng from t he St ate’ s e v ide nce that appel lan t w as the pers on Hal l encou ntered in his resi dence req uired th e j ur y to g o bey ond deduc ing a log ic al cons eq uence from es tabl is hed facts and enter the re alm of spec ula ti on. 7 As the Cou rt of C ri minal Appeal s noted in Hooper , a conc lus ion reache d by sp ecul ati on may not b e c ompletel y u n reasonab le, but iti s n ot s uff ic ien tl y bas ed on facts or

ev ide nce to suppo rta find ing bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Hooper , 214 S. W .3d a t 16. Con cl udi ng thatthe combi ned for ce of the State’ s ev ide nce of appel lan t’ s ident ity as the intrude r in H all’s residence , even w hen v iew ed in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e jury ’s v erdict, falls conside rably short of proo f of tha t fact bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt, we sustain app ellant ’s first issue, rev erse the trial court’s j udgm ent and rend er a judgme nt of acquittal.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.