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

NO. 03-0 8 -00 500 -CR

Loui s Sa nt os , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-07 -50 0551 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES E. MI LLER, JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant L ouis Santos guilty of burg lary

of a ha bitation. SeeTex. P enal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 200 3 ). T h e co urt assesse d punishment, enhanc ed by a pre vious felony conviction, at twenty

y ea rs ’ i m prisonment. Appellant conte nds that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to sustain the guilty verdic t, that evidence of an e x trane ous bad ac t was
err oneously

admitted, and that his trial counse l was ineff ective. We ove rrule the se contentions and aff irm the conviction.

I n J une 2007, Merced and Guadalupe Ojeda hired a friend, E arle Molina, to paint the
e xter ior of the ir ho us e in s outhe a st Tr avis County . Moli na hir e d a pp e lla nt t o a ssi st h im. On

the fi rs t da y of the pr oje c t, t

he Oj e da s, wh o w or

ke d f or the same e mpl oy e r, re tur ne d h ome fo r l un c h. Whil e the y we re the re , a

pp e lla nt as ke d pe rm iss ion to use the bathr oo m. Th e Oj e da s p e rm itt e d h im t o u se t h e b at h ro o mn ex tt o t h e u t i l i t y ro o m . T h e n ex td ay , M rs . Oj ed a w as n o tfe el i n g we l l an d d i d n o tgo2

to work. A t a

b o u t 8 :3 0 a . m. , a s s h e la

y in b e d , s h e h e ar d th e s o u n d o f dr aw e r s b e in g opened. A t first, she thoug ht that her husband ha d come home. She g ot up and walke d down the hall to a f ront be dr oom, whe re sh e fo un d a pp e lla nt r umm a g ingthr ou g h a

dr e sse r d ra we r. Ap pe lla

nt t old Mr s. Ojeda that he was lookingfor r ag s. She told appellant that she had no rag s and orde red him to leave the house. The Ojedas repor ted this incide nt to the sheriff ’s depar tment, and it was dete rmined that appellant ha d enter ed the house t hroug h a window in the kitche n, which wa s next to the utilit y room
and bathr oo m a

pp e lla nt h a d u se d th e pr e vio us da y . T he Oj e da s ele c te d not t o p re ss c ha rg e s a g a ins t appellant, a lthough they

did ask Molina to take him off the job. Four months later, on Octobe r 5, 2007, Mrs. Ojeda returne d home from work at 5:30 p.m. to discover that someone had for ced ope n the outs i d e d o o r t o t h e utility room, enter ed the ho us e , a nd sto le n a c on sid e ra

ble amou nt o f j e we lr

y fr om a dr e sse r d ra we r i n th e ma ste r b e dr oo m. At 2:20 p.m. that same day , three hours bef ore the burg lary

was discove red, a

ppellant sold sever al piece s of the Ojeda s’ stolen jewe lry at an Austin pawn shop. When there is a c halleng e to t h e sufficiency of the e vidence to sustain a criminal conviction, the question presented is whether a rational trier of fac t could have f

ound the essential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (l e g a l su ff

ic ie nc y ); Cla y ton v . S tate , 235 S.W .3d 772, 778 (T ex . C ri m . App. 2007) (le g al
su ff ic ie nc y ); J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fa ctual suff iciency ). In a le g a l su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll the e vid e nc e is r e vie we d in the lig ht mos t favo ra ble to the ve rd ic t; i t is assumed that the trie r of f act r esolved c onflicts in the testimony , weig hed the e vidence , and dre w
rea sonable infe renc es in a manne r that supports the ver dict. Clayton , 234 S.W .3d at 778.3 Ap pe l lant c on c e de s th a t th e Oj e da s’ ho me wa s b ur g lari zed , b ut h e ur g e s th a t th e State failed to prove that he was the burg lar. Althoug h there is no direct evide nce of appellant’ s g uilt, a defe ndant’s unex plained possession of property rec ently stolen in a burg lary supports an infer ence that the def

endant wa s the burg lar. Ro lle rso n v . S tate , 227 S.W .3d 718, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In t h i s c a s e , a

p p e l l an t ’ s s a l e o f

t h e O j e d a s ’ s t o l e nj e w e l r

y o n t h e v e r y d a y o f

t h e b u r g l ar

y, the abse nce of

any evi d en ce t hat appe llant offer ed an innoc ent explanation for his possession of the stolen g oods, and appe llant’s unlawful e ntry into the Ojedas’ house four months ea rlier combine to support the jury ’s finding of guilt beyond a re asonable doubt. Se e Mi dd le ton v . S tate , 18 7 S. W.3 d 1 34 , 1 38 -39 (Tex
. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 06 , n o p e t.) (f

ind ingsim ila

r e vid e nc e le g a lly sufficie nt to support burg lary conviction). I n a fac tual sufficie ncy revie w, all the evidenc e is c onsidered equally , including the testimony of def ense w itnesses and the e x i s t ence of a lternative hy potheses. Cle wis v . S

tate , 92 2 S. W.2 d 1 26 , 12 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Or on a v . S tate , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). Althoug h due defere nce stil l must be accor ded the f act f inder’s deter m i n ations, particular ly

those conc erningthe weig ht and cr edibility of the e vidence , the revie wing court may

disag ree with the result in order to preve nt a manife st injust ice. Jo h n s on , 23 S.W. 3d

a t 9; Cai n v . S

tate , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The evidenc e will be deeme d fac tually insufficient if the evidenc e supporting the verdic t is so weak as to make the finding of guilt clearly

wrongor manife stly

unjust, or if th e v er d i ct i s ag ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the available evidenc e. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 20 06 ); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11.The print did not match anyone in the police da ta base
. 1 4

Appellant ar g ues that there is direct evide nce that he was not the bur g lar. He cites testimony that office rs investig ating the burg lary fo u n d a par tial palm print that did not m atch
a pp e lla nt. Howeve r, there was no e vidence as to wher e the pr int was fou n d , m u ch less evidenc e 1 sug g esting that the print must have bee n left by the burg lar. Appe llant also ref ers us to testimony by the pa wn sh op mana g e r a c kn ow le dg ingthat g oo ds a re of te n b ou g ht, so ld, or

tr a de d o n th e str e e t, and he sug g ests that this mi g ht expl ain how he c ame to posses s the Ojeda s’ jewe lry . Giving the jury ’s ver dict the def

ere nce it is due, howe ver, w e do not find the e vidence supporting th e ver dict to be so wea

k, or the c ontrary

evidenc e to be so strong, as to make the finding of guilt clearly wrong
or manif e stl y un jus t. F ina lly , a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l court e rr e d by a dmi tti ngthe e vid e nc e of his
un lawf ul e ntr y int o th e Oj e da s’ ho us e in June 20 07
. He c on c e de s th a t th e re wa s n o o bje c tio n to thi s evidenc e, but he a

rgues that the e rror

was funda

mental and eg reg iously harmful. He also urg es that his tr ia l c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r h avin g fa ile d to ob je c t. The rules of evidenc e do not prec lude takingnotice of f undamental e rror s aff

ecting substantial rig hts that were not broug ht to the at t en t i o n o f the trial cour t. Tex. R . Evid. 103(d). Appellant’s r eliance on Al ma nz a v . S

tate is mis pl aced, howe ve r, a s th a t op ini on a pp lie s o nly

to char g e error. 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’ g ). The court of cr iminal appea ls ha s “consistently held that the failure to obje ct in a timely and spec ific manne r duringtrial fo rf eit s complaints about the admissibilit y of evide nce.” Sa lda no v . S tate , 7 0 S. W. 3 d 873, 8895

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (f ootnote omitted). Appellant fa iled to preser ve his complaint reg ardingthe extraneous offe nse evide nce.

Counsel’s failure to object to the testimony at issue does not show that counse l was functioning in effectively
. See Strick land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hernande z
v . S tate , 988 S.W .2d 770, 771-72 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999). Appellant a rgues that the June burg lary
w a s t o o d i s s i m i l ar

t o t h e c h ar g e d

o f f e n s e t o b e a dm i s s i b l e t o p r o v e h i s i d e n t i t y a s t h e g u i l t y p art y. He notes that in J une, he e ntere d the house throug h the kitchen window a nd rifled a draw er in the front bedr oom. The Oc tob er burg lar, on the othe r hand, e ntere d by forc ing ope n the utility

room door and stole jew elry

from a dr awe r in the master bedroom. We must i n dulge a strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fe ll within t he wide rang e of r easona

ble profe ssional assistance. Se e J ac k so n v . S tate , 8 77 S.W. 2d

76 8, 77 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ). De sp ite the su rf a c e dis sim ila

ri tie s c ite d b y

a pp e lla nt, c ouns e l c ou ld h a ve re a so na bly conclude d th a t t

h e p r e v io u s b u r g la

r y w a s r e le v an t, an d

h e n c e a dmi s s ib le , to p r o v e a p p e ll an t’ s kn ow le dg e of

the Oj e da s’ ho us e and

his int e nt to ste a l the ir

pr op e rt y , a nd in t ha t w ay to s ub sta nti a te ap p el l an t ’s identity

as the Oc tober burg lar. See T e x. R. E v id
. 4 0 4 ( b )
. I t w a s a ls o r e a s o n a b le for counsel to conc lude that the evide nce w as more pr obative t h an unfairly prejudicia l. See Te x. R. Ev id. 40 3. Couns e l c ann ot b e de e me d in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto o bje c t to e vid e nc e tha t w a s, on balanc e, unobjec tionable.6 Appellant’s c halleng es to his conviction are overr uled. The judgment of c onviction is affirme d.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: June 3, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh