NO. 07-07 -018 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 SEPTEM BER28, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ RI CH AR D VASQ UE Z, JR ., Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B17 064 -070 1; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. In t his appeal , R ic hard Vas q uez , Jr

. chal len g es the leg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to suppo rt his conv icti on of bu rg lar y . W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. T he sta nda rds by w hich w e revi ew the suf f iciency of

t h e e vid e nce a re set forth in Ja ckso n v

. Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) and W atso n v. State, 204 S.W .3d 404 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). W e refer the p arties to th ose ca ses. Appel lan t arg ues that beca use there w as no di re ct ev ide nce show ing thathe h ad
e v e r b e e n i n th e v i c t i ms ’ h o u s e , t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o c o n v i c th i m o f b u rg l a r y o f a2

habi tati on. The ev ide nce shows t he foll ow ing : 1) on N ov ember 7, 2006, Mi g uel F er re r and his w ife Cy nthi a Her nandezdisc ov ered upon their retur n home a ro und 8: 30 p. m. or 9:00 p.m. t hat o n e o f t h e w i n d o w s i n t h e i r h o me h a d b e e n c ra c k e d o p e n a s i f fo r c e d and t he bli nds w ere as kew ; 2) around t he s ame ti me, appe ll ant a ttempt ed to se ll so me D VDs t o one of Ferrer’s neighbo rs, Victor Ca stillo; 3) a ppe llant keptlooking at Ferrer’s house while tr y ing to sel l the D VD s; 4) C ast il lo boug ht the DVD s w hen he saw Ferrer ’s name on th em in order to re tur n the m to F er re r; 5) appel lan t ran from C ast il lo’s h o u se a fter se ll ing the DVD’s; 6) Castillo i mm edia tely called Ferrer and t old him thata ma n ha d sold him Ferrer’s DV Ds ; 7) F er re r w ent t o look and di sc ov ered hi s D VD s mi ss ing ; 8) appel lan t reappeared outs ide the house of Fer re r and Her nandeztw o times thatev eni ng after the dis cov er

y of the mi ss ing D VD s; 9) w hen F er re r acc used appel lant o f t a ki ng the it ems, appel lan t ran aw ay ; 10) appel lan t al so ran f ro m a poli ce off ic er w ho w as chas ing him; 11) a ppel lan t ran int o the arms of

another poli ce off ic er

and ask ed to be ar re ste d; an d 12) appel lan t t old the off ic er thathe w as too g ood of a t hie f to be c aug ht. The unex pla ine d pos ses si on of p ro per ty recent ly st ole n i n a b urg lar

y per mits an inference that the d efendant is the o ne w ho c ommitt ed th e burg lar y . Poncio v. State, 185 S.W .3d 9 04, 9 0 5 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 2006)

. How ev er , i f an ex pla nati on i s o ff ered for the def end ant ’s possessio n of same , the record mu st show i t is fa lse or unrea sona ble be fore the i nferenc e i s a v ail abl e. Mi ddleton v. State, 187 S. W .3d 1 34, 138- 39 ( Tex . Ap p.– Tex ar kana 2006, no pet .) ; Jacks on v . St ate, 12 S. W .3d 8 36, 8 39 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2000, pet . ref ’d). Finally , w het her the ex plan ation is reaso nab le is a quest ion of fact for t he fact finder to deci de. Pr

odan v . St ate, 574 S. W .2d 1 00, 1 03 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978) ; Mi ddleton3

v. State, 187 S. W .3d a t 139 ; Cocke v. State, 170 S.W .3d 747 , 750 (Tex. App. –W aco 2005) , re v’

d on other

gr ounds, 201 S. W .3d 7 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. Here, t he record es tabl is hed t hat a ppel lan t w as not on ly i n pos ses si on of the sto len prop erty imm edia tely af ter it w as stole n bu t tha t he w as atte mp ting to sell it. Nev erthe less,
a p p e llant ex pla ine d hi s p oss ess ion of the i tems by as ser ti ng thaton t he day

of the burg lar y , he and a frie nd w ere i n the trail er of a c ar repai r shop dr ink ing w hen tw o men came up to them and asked him to sell the sto len items. Gi v en the prox imi ty betw een t he burglary and app ellant ’s app eara nce w ith the stolen item s, the presen ce of the true ow ner’s
nam e on the item s (as oppo sed to the n am es of the two peop le w ho su ppo sedly asked him to sell the items), ap pellan tr u n n in g f rom th e ne ighbor to w hom he sold th e item s, app ellant ’s running f rom th e true o w ner w hen accuse d of st ealing the prope rty , app ellant ’s initially running f rom th e po lice, app ellant ’s later request to be arrested , and app ella n t’s
com me nt ab outbeing a good thie f constitu ted basis upo n w hich t h e f a c t f inde r could conclu de th at h is e x plan ation w as un reaso nab le or simply fabricat ed. Hav ing obv iously deter mined that itw as eit her fals e or unreason abl e, w e c annot say thatthe findi ng under mines our c o n f id e n ce in the v erdict. C onseq uentl y , s ome ev ide nce appeared of
re cord upon w hich the j ur y co uld co nv ict app ell ant b ey ond al l re asona ble doubtand the
conv icti on w as not manifestl y unjust

. In other

w ords, the v erdict had the suppo rtof both leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le all of appel lan t’ s i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment.

Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.