NO. 07-08 -036 1-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 MA Y19, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ POLI CA RP IO ALBER T MA DR ID II I, Appel lan t v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO. 196 56-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t, Pol ic ar pio Al ber t M adr id III , w as conv ic ted o f steali ng proper ty v alu ed betw een $1, 500 and $20 ,000. H e s eeks rev ersal of that conv ic ti on by arg uin g thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain i t and that the tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on i n fail ing to g ra nt hi s o ra l moti on for cont inu ance. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. Leg al and

Factua l Sufficien cy In hi s first tw o i ss ues, appel lan t c omplai ns of the s uff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce. The w ell -e sta bli shed sta ndards by w hic h w e rev iew

su ch compl ain ts are di sc uss ed i n Jacks on2

v. Vi rgini a, 443 U .S

. 3 0 7 , 99 S.C t. 2781, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 ( 1979) , W ats on v . St ate, 204 S.W .3d 4 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) , and thei r prog eny . Next, ap p e ll a n tc om plains th at th e Sta te failed to prove that he “unlawfully appropr iat ed or

ex er ci sed cont ro l ov er” the t ra il er that w as stol en f ro m a l ocal ch ur ch and found in his bac ky ard. At best , thi s suppo sedl y re present ed the mere poss ess ion of sto len goods as op pose d t o evidence of the th ef

t itself . And, he con tinue s, the “[m]e re posse ssion” of

such prop erty doe s not giv e rise to a presu mp tion o f g u il tif rea sona bly explained . Th e explana tion th at he h a p p e ned to prof fer inv olved his cousin pu rported ly asking tha t app ellant w atch the trailer for several days in exchange for $20

. W e overrule the i ss ue. The poss ess ion of sto len proper ty may j ust ify an inference of g uil t i f that po ss ess ion is personal , recent , and unex pla ine d and inv olv es a cons ci ous ass erti on of con trol ov er the proper ty

. Gr a n t v. State, 566 S. W .2d 9 54, 9 56 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978)

. If the ac cus ed off ers a n ex pla nati on, t he record mustsh ow thatthe acc ount is fals e or un re a sonable, Pr ic e v . St ate, 902 S. W .2d 677, 680 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 1995, no pet .) , and w hether the ex pla nati on i s fal se or

unreason abl e i s a q uest ion of fact. Di xon v. State, 43 S.W .3d 5 48, 552 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler

2001, no p et.) ; Pr

ic e v . St ate, 902 S. W .2d a t 680

. In d e te rmini ng w hether su ch an as ser

ti on of a r ig ht t o the trail er w as made and w hether appel lan t’ s e x pla nati on for the p re senc e of the t ra il er w as false or

unreason abl e, the jur y had before it the follo w ing ev ide nce: 1) the trail er w as tak en from t he c hurch on or abo ut the 3 of Janu ary , 200 8, 2) the trailer the n w as seen in f ront of app ellant ’s rd residen ce on Janu ary3 or 4, 200 8, 3) by Jan uary 5, it h ad bee n mo v ed int o the backyard3

b e h in d a si x-fo o t h igh woo d e n p riva cy fe n ce , 4 ) th e re w a s n o gat e on th e pro p e rt y thr o u gh w hic h the trail er

co uld be mov ed i nto t he bac ky ard, 5) a po rt ion of the fence had to be dism ant led to ef

fectu ate the move, 6) appe llant sta ted thathe an d his gir lf riend m oved it there, 7) four pol ic e off ic ers h ad to dismant le a 16-foot sect ion of the fence to re mov e the trail er from th e b a ck yard, 8) w hil e the off ic ers w ere i nv est ig ati ng the sc ene, appel lan t ar ri v ed i n a D elt a 88 car al ong w it h tw o females , 9) the car had a tow ing hi tch ca pabl e of pul li ng the trail er , 10) appel lan t w as tol d by the off ic ers t o w aitby

the pass eng er

se at of the car momentar il y , 11) the loc ati on atw hic h appel lan t w ait ed had been prev iou sl y se ar ched by an off ic er , w hic h sear ch had uncov ered nothin g of note, 12) after appell ant w as tol d to mov e the ca r, how ev er , one of t he ide nti fyi ng pla tes prev iou sl y i nst all ed on the t ra il er

and tor n pi eces of appel lan t’ s ins urance card w ere di sc ov ered adj acentto w here appel lan t had been w a i t i n g , 1 3 ) a p p e l l a n ta d mi t t e d h e “ p ro b a b l y ” t o re u p t h e i n s u ra n c e d o c u me n t s at som e time , and 14) the actua l license plate assig ned to th e trailer w as foun d folde d in half on to p of appel lan t’ s refri g erator i nsi de his house

. These c ircums tanc es depi ct more than mere poss ess ion of the s tol e n i te m . T hey al so depi ct, on t he par t of appel lan t, act s t o conce al the trailer’s locat ion and id ent ity

. T hey f urthe r de pict app ellant ’s int entto dispo se o f ite m s t h a t wou ld fa cil it a te t h e t ra ile r’s i d e n ti f ica ti o n an d hi s in volve m e n t with its ta kin g. Theyalso re nder

dubious appell ant’ s conte nti on that he w as si mply w a tc h in g the trailer for his cousin for several day s. I n dee d, a ratio nal jury could have reason ably deduc ed th at on e does not dis mantl e a f e n ce to hid e a t ra il er and re mov e i denti fyi ng infor mati on from t hat t ra il er i f the pur por

ted o w ner

i s g oin g to pic k i t up in a day or tw o. In sho rt, the e v iden ce v iew ed in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e jury ’s v erdict is suffici ent t o al low

a rati onal j ur

y to find, b ey ond reas onabl e doubt , t hat a ppel lan t ex er ci sed4

cont ro l ov er

the trail er

w it hout the ow ner ’s cons ent and thereby commi tted theft. And, as app ellantsugg este d, th ere m ay have bee n test im ony that an oth er had stolen the trailer, that another

had re mov ed the lic ense pl ate and place d it i n appel lan t’ s h ouse thoug h no one el se li v ed th ere, an d tha t ano ther m ay hav e remov ed th e v ehi cl e’s i denti ficat ion pl ate and l eft itnext t o w here appel lan t happened to hav e sto od and tor n up hi s i nsurance card. Ye t , t h e ju ro rs we re f re e t o a s s e s s t h e c r e d i b i l i t yo f t h o s e wh o we re t e s t ifyin g, re s o lve ev ide nti ar

y di sput es, and re

ject t he pot enti al for mere c oin ci den ce . In ot her w ords, they w ere notreq uired to buy hi s s tor y . And, w e do not f ind their rej ect ion of

i t and thei r ult imat e v e rd ic ts o contrary to the overw helm ing w eight of the evidence as to rend er the verdict cl ear ly w ro ng . Thus, the e v ide nce w as, and is , bot h l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. Motion for Continu ance Appel lan t al so cl aims the tr ial cour t er re d in deny ing his req uest , made on th e day of trial, fo r a cont inua nce so tha t he could o bta in coun sel of his ow n cho ice. W e f ind on ly an o ral mot ion for con t in u a n ce in the record. An oral or un sw orn m otion g ene rally preser v es nothi ng for rev iew

. Dewber ry v. Sta te, 4 S. W .3d 7 35, 7 5 5 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ; T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 29.03 (V er non 2006) (s tati ng that a cr imi nal ac ti on ma y be con tinue d on the wr itten mot ion of the de f e n d a n tu p on su f f icient cau se sho w n). Thus, w e ov er ru le the i ss ue. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.