NO. 07-07 -014 8-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 APR IL 29 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ ST ACY L. CONNER, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 413481; H ON ORABLE CE CI L G. PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t St acy

C onner appeal s from hi s c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated ro bber y and the re sul ti ng l ife s entenc e. Throug h fiv e poi nts of er ro r, appel lan t c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d in ov er ru li ng hi s mot ion to suppress and ass erts the e v ide nce presen ted at tr ial w as factu al l y i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on . W e affi r m.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 29.03 (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). Thi s i s a first deg re e felony 1 pun ishab le by imp risonm entin the institu tiona l div ision for life or for a ny term o f n ot m ore than 99 y ears o r les s t han 5 yea rs a n d a fine not to ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann. § 12. 32 ( Ver non 200 3)
. See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.42 (V er non 200 7)
. 2 The proper

ty manag er s a id , “They ’re c ommerc ial sh ops, they ’re c ommerc ial 3 w arehous es. It ’s for runn ing busine ss es out of . The si z e unit [appel lan t] w as in w as a 1500 s qu a re fo o tu n it
. I td id h a ve a b a t h ro o m in t h e re , b u tit ’s n o tfo r l ivi n g i n . I twa s a c t u a ll y a commerci al shop to r un a busi ness out of.” 2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und Throug h an Aug ust2006 ind ictment, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h tw o counts of ag g ra v ated ro bber

y . The i ndi ctmental so in clu d ed an enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph s etti ng 1 forth ap pellan t’s prior fina l fe lony conv iction. App ellantf iled a m otion to supp ress, w hich 2 the t ri al cour

t den ied after

a he ar ing
. Appel lan t thereafter entered a ple a of not g uil ty , and the c ase proceed ed to tr ial before a j ur y . Ev ide nce show ed that in May 2006, appell ant rent ed a commerci al st orag e unit on Ash Av enue, jus t out si de th e south ci ty limi ts of Lubboc k. Becaus e he had l ostpos ses si on of his Lubb o ckr esi dence , he mov ed al l it s c ontent s t o the uni t. Al thoug h he pai d the security deposit a nd th e rent for May w hen he rented the unit, he did n ot sign the facility ’s re ntal ag re ement an d di d notpay furth er rent. Photog ra phs of the c ommerc ial faci li ty sh ow a l arg e metal build in g di v ide d i nto s e ve ra l u n it s , e a c h h a vin g b o t h a s t a n d a rd d o o r a n d a n o ve rh e a d d o o r. In h is t e s t im o n y, the faci li ty ’s proper

ty manag er

mostoften c all ed th e uni ts “w arehous es. ” Bot h appel lat e 3 b ri e fs re fe r t o t h e m a s st o ra ge u n it s , a t e rm a ls o co m m o n ly u s e d d u ri n g t e s t im o n y.3

It is un d i s p u t e d a p p e l l a n tb e g a n l i v i n g i n t h e u n i t
. H e t e s t i fi e d a s m u c h a tthe suppress ion hear ing
. The proper ty manag er tes ti fied he di sc ov ered appe ll ant w as li v ing in the unit i n mid -May , and told appe llant he could not liv e the re. He testif ied ap pellan t also faile d to ar ra ng e for electr icutil ity serv ic e to his unit, caus ing the facil ity to be bi ll ed for the ele ctr ic ity

he u sed. Sometime in June, the facil ity padl ock ed appe ll ant’ s u nitbec ause of his fail ure to pay

rent a nd hi s i mprop er

us e of the uni t. W hen appel lan t broke int o the uni t, the man a ge r called th e she riff ’s depa rtme nt. T he facility began eviction proce edin gs, w hic h w ere s ti ll pendi ng at the t ime of the e v ents thatl ed to appel lan t’ s robber y co nv icti on. The manag er

of a Lubbo ck

pi z z a rest aurant t est ified he w as alo ne i n the rest aurant in the l ate e v eni ng of Jul y 16, 2006, w hen he w as approache d by a w hit e mal e w ear ing dar k c lot hin g , g lov es and a sk i mask
. The in tr uder poi nted a handg un at t he manag er and demanded mone y . I nit ial ly thi nki ng the demand w as a prank, the manag er told the robber to l eav e. The robber

sh ot hi m, the bul let pass ing throug h the manag er ’s thi g h. W hen t he manag er tol d the ro bber he coul d not open the rest aurant’ s s afe, the ro bber hol ste re d the g un and pul led out a larg e kni fe, sti ll demandi ng money . The robber l eft after the mana g er ref used his instruction to get on the f loor. Th e ma nager w entnext door and police w ere cal led
. He w as tak en to a ho spi tal for t re atment of his g unsho t wound. Evi den ce po lice collected at the scene include d a spe nt .3 2-ca li ber brass she ll casing. Other w itnesse s provi ded the de scription an d license plate nu mb er of a w hite fourdoor C hev ro letLumi na th ey sa w par ked near

the re st aurant w hil e the robber y w as occ ur ri ng . Theytes ti fied they saw a man w ear ing a s ki mask g et i n the ca r, and that the car al so cont ain ed a female pas seng er . The w it ness es prov ide d g e n e ra l desc ri pti ons ofThe robber w as desc ri bed as a w hit e male, si x feet, three inc hes tal l, w eig hin g 170 4 pounds , w it h an av erag e bui ld. 4 the man . Th e ne xt n ig h t , J u ly 17, po lice locate d the w hite L um ina, a ppe llant an d his

4 female c ompa n ion Kr is ti na St andke at appel lan t’ s s torag e uni t. Appel lan t den ied any know led g e of the ro bber y and re fused to cons ent t o a s earch of the uni t. The next day , J uly

18, appel lan t w as ar re ste d on a war ra nt for an unre lat ed offense, dr iv ing the w hit e Lumi na. Standk e w as w it h appell ant w hen he w as ar re ste d. On J uly 19, she gav e a w ritten state me nt to a police det ective. In the sta tem ent , she ide ntif ied he rself a s t h e fe m a le p a s s e n ge r in t h e wh it e L u m in a wh e n it wa s s e e n a t t h e t im e o f t h e ro b b e ry. Her st atement w as to t he effect tha t app ell ant t old her to sta y i n the ca r, and he retur ned shor tl y w ear ing a sk i mask
. She denied anyknow led g e of a robber

y or a s hooti ng . The sta tement re ci ted t hat s he had seen appel lan t w it h a s mall bl ack g un abou t s ix

months before. Sta ndke ’s statem entindicate d she had dat ed a ppe llant for som e eightee n mo nth s, a n d c o n t a i n e d t h e s e s e n t e n c e s , “ I h a v e b e e n l i v i n g w i t h [ a p p e l l a n t ] fo r a b o u ta w e e k
. W e hav e been li v ing at a sto ra g e bui ldi ng on As h Av e.” St andke al so si g ned a w ri tten cons ent to s earch of the s torag e uni t. Officers c onducted t hei r search that afternoo n. Theyfound bul let s l ik e the sp ent s hel l found at t he pi z z a rest aurant, and found a kni fe that mat ched the d esc ri pti on of the one t he robber us ed to threaten the rest aurant mana g er .5

T he p rope rty

man ager of

the st o ra ge facility

also w as prese nt w hile po lice w ere the re. He app roach ed the off icers, telling the m he w ant ed possessio n of the unit b ecau se an e v iction he aring w as sche dule d for Ju ly 2 4. O n July 20, he an d a facility main ten ance employ ee ent ered th e uni t t o p re p a re to cl ean i t out
. The maint enanc e empl oy ee found a handg un, sk i mask and g lov es ins ide a l eather bag , w hic h the proper

ty manag er

tur ned ov er to pol ic e. A St ate e x per t w it ness tes ti fied te sts show ed the .32-c ali ber shell found at the p iz z a rest aurant w as fire d from t he hand g un th e mai ntenanc e empl oy ee found. Appel lan t t est ified at tr ial
. He maint ain ed he w as asl eep in his storag e unit at t he t im e o f t h e ro b b e ry. Appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress soug ht the ex cl usi on of the ev ide nce found dur ing the p oli ce search of the s torag e uni t on Jul y 19 and that found bythe facil ity empl oy ees on Jul y 2 0
. T h e tr ial co urt den ied the moti on after a pretr ial hear ing at w hic h the proper ty ma nager and the po lice dete ctiv e test if ied for the St ate , and app ellantand Stan dke tes ti fied for the d efense. The in dictment charg ed appe ll ant w it h the ag g ra v ated ro bber y i n two c ounts , one all eg ing hi s u se of a fire ar m as a deadl y w eapon, the other all eg ing hi s u se of a kni fe as a deadl y w eapon. The cour

t’ s c harg e, ho w ev er , present ed to the jur y only the c ount a l l e g i n g u s e o f t h e fi re a r m. Th e j u r y fo u n d a p p e l l a n tg u i l t y

a n d a s s e s s e d p u n i s h me n ta tl i fe impr is onment. Appel lan t’ s c ounse l ti mely fil ed a moti on for

newtri al that w as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw . Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.6 Ana ly sis Suppr ession Is sues By appel lan t’ s first four poi nts of er ro r, he cont ends the tr ial co urt rev ersi bly er re d by deny ing hi s mot ion to suppress the ev ide nce obtai ned dur ing the w ar ra ntl ess se arches of his storage unit. A trial co urt’s ru ling on a m otion t o supp ress is rev iew ed for an ab use of dis creti on. Vi

ll ar re al v. State, 935 S.W .2d 1 34, 1 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. A bi furcat ed sta ndard of rev iew

i s a ppl ied to a tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a m oti on to su ppress ev ide nce. This st andard of rev iew g iv es almos t t otal deferen ce to t he tr ial co urt’ s d eterm in ati on of his tor ic al facts and app li es a de n ovo rev iew of the t ri a l cour

t’ s a ppl ic ati on of the law to thos e facts
. Guz

m an v . St ate, 9 55 S. W .2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). Th e trial court is the sol e tr ier

of f a ct , th e judg e of w it ness credi bil ity , and the deter miner of the w eig ht g iv en to w it ness tes ti mony . Sta te v. Ross, 32 S .W .3d 8 53, 8 55 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. W hen t he tr ial co urt doe s n ot mak e ex pli ci t findi ng s o f fact in ru li ng on a moti on to suppress ev ide nce, appell ate cour ts “ re v iew

the ev ide nce in a li g ht most fav orabl e to the tr ial co urt’ s rul ing and ass ume that the tri al cour t made impl ic itf ind ing s of factsu ppor ted by the record.” Am ador v. Sta te, 221 S.W .3d 6 66, 6 73 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) , quo ting Ford v. State, 158 S.W .3d 4 88, 4 93 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. Appel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r chal len g es the l eg ali ty of the J uly 19 pol ic e s earch of the storag e unit based on Standk e’s consent
. By his sec ond, thi rd and fourth poi nts , he chal len g es the a dmis si bil ity of the e v ide nce found by the facil ity

emp lo yee s o n J uly

20.7

Beca use the e v ide nce found by the facil ity

empl oy ees w as the more damag ing to appel lan t, w e beg in w it h hi s p oin ts of error ch all eng ing thatev ide nce. Poin ts of Error Two a nd Thre e - Facility Employe es’ Search of Sto rage Unit The Fou rt h Amendment to the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on and arti cl e one, se cti on nin e of the Tex as Con sti tuti on protect i ndi v idu als from unreason abl e s earches and sei z ures. U .S. Con st. amend. IV; Tex . C onst . ar t. I, § 9. Ac cordin g to the federal ex cl usi onar

y r ule , ev ide nce obtai ned in v iol ati on of t he Con sti tuti on i s i nadmis si ble at tr ial ag ain st a c ri minal defendant. Mapp v . O hio , 367 U. S. 643, 655, 81 S.C t. 1684, 6 L.E d.2d 1081 ( 1961)
. By appel lan t’ s s econd poi nt of er ro r, he conte nds the e v ide nce found by the facil ity em ployees on July

2 0 shou ld have bee n excluded b ecau se it w as f ruit of the July 19 police search , w hich he cont end s w as illegal. He cites Brow n v. Illinois , 422 U .S. 590, 602- 03, 95 S. Ct . 225 4, 45 L.E d.2d 416 ( 1975) and W ong Su n v

. U nited St ates , 371 U .S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 40 7, 9 L. Ed. 2 d 4 4 1 ( 196 3) in supp ort of his conte ntion . Th ose ca ses, ho w ever, inv olv ed s earches co nduct ed by g ov er nment ag ents
. Br own, 422 U .S. at 60 2- 03; W ong Sun, 371 U. S. a t 485 -8 6. Nei ther the Four

th A mendment no r the Tex as Con sti tution re q uires ex cl usi on of i ncr imi nati ng ev ide nce obtai ned bya pri v ate c it iz en’ s i ll eg al search. Cob b v . St ate , 85 S.W .3d 2 58, 2 70- 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; see W alter v. United

State s, 447 U .S. 649, 656, 100 S.C t. 2395, 65 L.Ed. 2d 410 (1 980) (w ro ng ful s eiz ures by pr iv ate individuals do not i nvoke the Fourth Am end me nt or its exclusionary rule an d t h u s su ch il leg all y obta ine d ev ide nce is admi ss ib le i n cri minal proceed ing s) ; United State s v.The Fi fth Ci rc uitso meti mes ha s a ppl ied a s li g htl y di fferent t e st t hat i ncl udes the 5 inq uir y w hether the g ov er nment has of fered the pri v ate party

some form of compens ati on for th e s earch. See Un it e d S tates v

. D ahl str om , 180 F.3d 67 7, 68 2 (5 Cir . 199 9). th Appl y ing thattes t woul d notl ead t o a d ifferent re sul t i n thi s c ase. 8 Jac obsen , 466 U.S. 109 , 113 , 104 S.Ct. 16 52, 80 L.E d.2 d 85 (1984 ) (st ate action is re q uired before F our

th A mendment i s i mpli cat ed)
. See als o M iles v. State, 241 S.W .3d 28, 3 4 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ( re cog niz ing sa me). U nle ss app e lla n t is cor re ct that the facility e m p lo ye e s w ere actin g as agent s of the governmen t, no constitu tiona l ri ght is impl ic ated in thei r search of the s torag e uni t. By his third point, appe llant arg ues the facility em ployees w ere acting at th e be hest of or as ag ents of the p oli ce w hen t hey co nduct ed th eir

Ju ly 20 s earch, so thatthei r act ion s are i mputed t o the pol ic e. See Mo rr ow v. State , 757 S.W .2d 484, 48 9 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dis t.] 1988, pet. ref’d) ( “g ov er nment may not encou ra g e c onduct by pr iv ate p ersons that st the g ov er nment i tse lf ca nnot do” ). Rev iew ing the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng here, w e w il l use the facto rs other T exas courts have app lied in similar cases when d e t e rm in in g w het her a person is acti ng pr iv atel y or as an ag ent of the Sta te: (1 ) w hether the g ov er nment k new

of and ac q uie sc ed i n the int ru si v e condu ct, and (2 ) w hether the p erson int ended t o as si st law enforc ement efforts or

i nst ead t o f urther

his ow n needs. Daws on v . St ate, 106 S. W .3d 3 88, 39 2 ( Tex .A pp .– H ou s to n [1 D i s t. ] 20 03 , no p et .); W oods v. State, 970 S.W .2d 7 70, 7 74 st (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1998, pet. denie d ); see Car ro ll v. Sta te , 911 S.W .2d 2 10, 2 20 n. 5 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1995, no p et.) (menti oni ng sa me factors)
. Su ch an anal y si s i s made on 5 a c ase- by -c ase basi s in li g ht of all the ci rc umstan ces . Daws on, 106 S. W .3d a t 392. TheT h e d e t e c t ive a ls o t o ld t h e c o u rt , “I t o ld [ t h e p ro p e rt y m a n a ge r] t h e y d id n ’th a ve 6 anything to do wi th ou r inv estigation , tha t w as a civ il deal.” 9 defendant bea rs the burden of prov ing thata pr iv a te par ty acted a s a n ag ent o f the g ov er nment. Id. Here, the trial court rea sona bly could have conclud ed th at ne ither of the two facto rs fa vors appel lan t’ s p osi ti on. The “i ntr usi v e c onduct” appel lan t s ees w as the faci li ty employ ees’ entr

y i nto t he s torag e uni t before the ev icti on procee d ing w as compl eted. Clearly police w ere aware of

the pro perty man ager’s desire to clean t he unit and prepa re it for re-leasing before the pen ding ev iction proce edin g w as com plete d. During the po lice search condu cte d on Jul y 19, the prop erty

m anag er

approac hed the off ic ers, tel li ng them he w anted poss ess ion of the uni t becau se an ev icti on hear ing w as sc hedul ed for J uly 24. How ev er , t he ev ide nce does not d emonst ra te that poli ce knew the manag er

w as g oin g to ent er the unit on July 20, or acquiesced in th at act ion. T he p olice de tective testif ied he told the p ro per

ty manag er

he c oul d notg iv e the manag er “ poss ess ion of that bui ldi ng ” after the pol ic e s earch in the face of Standk e’s cl aim that she had a ri g ht t o i ts poss e ss ion
. The 6 strong estev ide nce in appel lan t’ s fav or on t his poi nt i s t he manag er ’s tes ti mony that“ [i ]t w as imp lied by the of

f icers that . . . tha t [the unit] was ours to f inish up and clean ou t.” The record i ndi cat es the mana g er g ot the i mpres si on from t he pol ic e off ic ers t hat the y w ere f inished w ith the ir search and he c o u ld “do w haty ou want, he [app ellant ] ain’t comi ng bac k.” But ev en that tes ti mony does not est abl is h the off ic ers mean t t he manag er w as free t o c lea n the uni t outbefore the e v icti on proceed ing w as compl eted.10

W e see no evidence the property ma nager’s inten tion in ent ering the storage un it w as to assi st la w

enforcement . The manag er testi fied he and the maintenanc e empl oy ee “w ere try ing to get it t o w here w e cou ld rent it back o ut again. ” C om par e Rior dan v . St ate, 905 S. W .2d 7 65, 7 73 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1995, no pet.) (p ri v ate c it iz en s ummoned home, of f icers ex plaine d to him the ir purpose for being in the h om e an d requeste d his assistan ce in t he se arch) with Bodde v. State, 5 6 8 S
. W
. 2 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 2 - 5 3 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 978) (l andl ady ente re d apar

tment after defendant h a d b e e n ar re ste d to prepare i t for a new tenant ; c our

t c oncl uded s he w as not a l aw enforc ement officer , w as not a cti ng as the a g ent of law enforc ement officers, and her acti ons w ere notsu bje ct to t he F our th A mendment proh ibition). W e find the p ro per

ty manag er and the maint enanc e employ ee w ere notacti ng as ins tr uments of the g ov er nment w hen they entered the sto ra g e uni t on Jul y 20 a nd found the i ncr imi nati ng ev ide nce. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s sec ond and t hird poi nts of error. Poi nt of Er ro r Four - Ar ticle 38. 23 Appel lan t’ s four

th po intof er ro r p resent s t he c ontent ion the ev ide nce the faci li ty employ ee s fo u n d w a s i n a d mi s s i b l e u n d e r a rt i c l e 3 8
. 2 3 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i minal Procedu re . Ar

ti cl e 38. 23 forbi ds the a dmis si on of ev ide nce sei z ed by anyoff ic er

or othe r person w hen t hat e v ide nce has been ob tai ned i n v iol ati on of the sta te or federal cons ti tuti ons or

i n v iol ati on of st ate o r federal l aw . Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc . Ann. art. 38.2 3B a s e d o n t h e su p p re s s io n h e a ri n g t e s t im o n y, t h e t ri a l c o u rtre a s o n a b ly c o u ld h a ve 7 deter mined the p ro per

ty manag er

and the mai ntenanc e empl oy ee w ere acti ng w it hin the sc ope of thei r duti es as employ ees of the ow ner of the p ro per

ty w hen t hey

ente re d the sto ra g e uni t on that occ asi on. 11 (V er non 200 5) ; Mi

les v. Sta te, 241 S.W .3d 2 8, 36 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Kr ause v. State, 243 S. W .3d 9 5, 10 3 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2007, pet. ref’d)
. st Appel lan t

a rg ues the e v icti on proceed ing s a g ain st him had notbeen compl eted and, as a re sul t, w hen the proper ty manag er entered th e uni t, he v iol ated secti ons of Chapt er 24 of the Tex as Proper ty C ode. See T e x. P ro p . Co d e A n n . § 2 4
. 0 0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 0 ); T e x. Prop. C ode An n. § 24.0061 (V er non 2000)
. The i ss ue i n a forci ble entr y and detai ner

or forci ble deta ine r proceed ing under Pro per ty Code Chapt er

24 is the ri g ht of pos ses si on of the p re mis es. Tex . R . C iv . P. 746; Hon g Kong D ev. , Inc. v. N

guyen , 229 S.W .3d 4 15, 4 34 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 D is t
. ] 2 0 0 7 , p e t
. r e f ’d ). T h e re c o rd gi ve s u s n o re a s o n t o b e li e ve st that the p ro pr iety

of the o w ner ’s empl oy ee ent er ing the uni t on Jul y 20 w oul d be 7 address ed by

tr ial of a forc ibl e ent ry

and detai ner , or

forc ibl e det ain er , p ro ce edi ng . See Tex . Prop. C ode Ann. § 24.008 ( Ver non 2000) ( ev icti on suitdoes notbar su itfor, inter alia , trespas s) . The proper

ty m anag er ’s enteri ng the uni t di d notdepr iv e appel lan t of any r ig ht to po ss ess ion of it
. It follows that the manag er ’s enteri ng the uni t on that date w as not a v i o l a t i o n o f

t h e l a w s i m p l y b e c a u s e i to c c u r re d p r i o r t o t r i a l o f t h e p e n d i n g e v i c t i o n s u i t
. W e overrule appe llant’s fourth pointof error.12

Poin t of Error One - Auth ority of Police to Search Storag e Unit In a p p e lla n t’s first poi nt, he c ontends the Jul y 19 s earch of his uni t w as il leg al beca use p olice ha d no au t h o ri t y t o s e arch the prem ises. A v alid con sentto a sea rch provides an exceptio n to con stitutio nal w arrant a nd p roba ble c a u s e r equireme nts for a search. Schn eck

lot h v . Bu sta m onte, 412 U. S. 2 18, 2 19, 9 3 S. Ct . 2 0 4 1 , 3 6 L.E d.2d 854 (1 973) ; Car

m ouchev. Sta te, 10 S.W .3d 323 , 331 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0). A w a rr a n tless ent ry and search by law

e n fo rce me nt of

f icers does n ot vi olate the Fou rth Am end me nt’s protecti on ag ain st unreason abl e s earches and sei z ures if the off ic ers hav e obt ain ed th e cons ent o f a thi rd par

ty w ho pos ses ses common author ity ov er the premis es or

effect s t o be s earched. United Sta tes v. M atlock, 415 U. S. 164, 170, 94 S.C t. 988, 3 9 L.E d.2d 242 (1 974)
. “C ommon authori ty ” rest s “on mutual use of proper ty byperso ns g enerall y

hav ing joint acce ss or co ntrol for mo st purpo ses.” Ma tlock , 415 U .S. at 17 0 n.7
. Ow nershi p i s n ot dis posi ti v e i n det er mini ng w hether a t hird p arty

has the author ity

to cons ent t o a s earch. Ma xwel l v. State, 73 S.W .3d 278 , 281 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2). Here , v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t mo s t fa v o ra b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f t h e mo t i o n to supp ress, the e v iden ce include d Sta ndke ’s sta tem entt hatsh e w as liv ing w ith ap pellan t in the s torage u nit
. The tr ial co urt c oul d hav e found tha t c oncl usi on s uppor ted b y the proper ty manag er ’s tes ti mony thatSta ndke freq uentl y w as presentat the u nit
. As noted, itw as undi sput ed appe ll ant w as li v ing there. Standk e w as w it h appel lan t i n the uni t w hen of f icers first question ed a ppe llan to n t h e n ight fo llow ing the robb ery . Th e storage un it compr is ed a s ing le spac e w it h a b athroom. Acc ess to one par t of the uni t w as acc ess to13

all of it
. This factor

di sti ng uis hes thi s c ase f ro m t h o se in w hic h c onsen t t o s earch w as g iv en by a pe rs on w ho had acc ess to onl y part of the p re mis es. See C or ea, 52 S .W .3d a t 316 ( no eq ual ac ces s a nd c ontrol despi te fact that bedroom door w as open an d brother-i nlaw had acc ess to common areas of apar tment becaus e no one other than appel lan t l iv ed i n the bed roo m) ; M

alo ne v . St ate, 163 S.W .3d 7 85, 7 96- 97 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2005, pet. re f’d) ( brother

had no actual auth or ity to cons ent t o s earch of app e lla n t’ s b edroom beca use while he liv ed in sam e hou se as app ellant , he did not liv e in the same bed room ); Beck nel l v. State, 720 S.W .2d 5 26, 5 28 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) (p anel op.) (father had no actu al aut hority to auth oriz e se a rc h o f adu lt son’s room ). W ith regard to Sta ndke ’s author ity ov er the uni t, the tri al cour

t als o could hav e c onsi dered officer tes ti mony

thatsh e insi s te d s he ha d a r i g ht to be at th e un i t an d w as “ g oi ng to k ee p th e k ey ” w hen police compl eted thei r search. Again, vi ewi ng the ev iden ce in the prop er lig ht and deferring to th e trial court’s role in the e v alu ati on of the credi bil ity of w it ness es and w eig ht t o be ass ig ned t o c onflicti ng tes ti mony , w e find the t ri al cour t reason abl y

co uld hav e det er mined Standk e ha d actual author ity to cons ent to a search of the s torag e uni t bei ng us ed as a resi dence
. See Nel son v. State, N o. 06 -0 2- 00098- CR , 200 3 W L 25214 6 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana Feb. 6, 2003, pet. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( maid infor med off ic ers man and woman w ere l iv ing i n motel room; female infor med off ic er thatsh e l iv ed th ere and had been t here a w hil e; appell ant denie d she l iv ed th ere, bu t c our t found t he officer ’s tes ti monyThe Stat e arg ues alt er nati v ely thatpol ic e reason abl y

reli ed on Standk e’s apparent 8 author ity to cons ent to the search ev en i f she l ack ed actual auth or ity . See , e.g ., Davis v. State, 93 S.W .3d 664 , 669 (Tex.App .–T exarkana 20 02, pet. ref ’d ) ( base d on fem ale’s sta tements at the re si dence that she li v ed there, it w as re asona ble for officer to conc lud e she coul d c onsen t t o the se arch)
. W e do not find it neces sar y to ad dress thi s c ontent ion
. 14 w a s s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o w

t h e fe m a l e h a d a c t u a l a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s e n tt o t h e s e a rc h )
. W e 8 overrule appe llant’s f irst point of error. Poin t of Error Five--F

actu al Suff

iciency In appell ant’ s l astpoi nt of er ro r, he c ontends the ev ide nce present ed attr ial w as factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort his conviction for a gg rav ate d robb ery . Afactu al suf f iciency rev iew conside rs w het her the ev iden ce s u p p o rt ing g uilt, tho ugh legally suf f icient, is so w e a kt h a tthe jury’ s v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anifestly unju st, or evi den ce cont ra ry t o t he v erdict i s s uch that the j ur y ’s v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Gr otti v. Sta te, 273 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 83 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) ; Ma rshal

l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Watson v. State , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). In a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e con sider all the e v ide nce, but in a neut ra l li g ht. Grotti, 2 7 3 S
. W
. 3d at283; Ma rshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414
. Al thoug h an appel lat e cour t’ s author ity to re v iew

factual suffici ency

per mits the co u rtt o di sag re e w it h the fact fin der ’s dete rmi nati ons, ev en to a li mite d deg re e tho se conc er nin g the w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce, the appel lat e cour t must acc ord them due deference. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; Johns on , 23 S.W .3d at 9. See al

so Steadm an v

. St ate, ___ S.W .3d _

__, N o. P D- 1311- 08, 2 009 W L 83855 0, *4 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. Ap ril 1, 20 09). W hen there is a con f li c ti n t he e v iden ce, to f ind it15

factual ly i nsuffici ent w e must firs t be abl e to say , w it h some o bje cti v e bas is i n the record, that the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. W ats on , 2 0 4 S
. W
. 3 d a t 4 1 7
. W e mu s t a l s o d i s c u s s t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t , a c c o rd i n g to the appel lan t, most under mines the j ur y 's v erdict. Laster

v. Sta te, 275 S.W .3d 5 12, 5 18 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2009) ; Si m s v . St ate, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App .20 03). The Stat e call ed Standke as one o f its w it ness es. Sh e ac know led g ed s ig nin g her w ri tten sta tement to Det ect iv e Ma rt ine z , but deni ed th at i ts cont ents i mpli cat ing appel lan t we re t ru e . Sh e t e s t if ie d sh e wa s t h e p a s s e n ge r i n t h e w h i t e L u m in a o u t s id e t h e p izza re sta urant but sai d the man w it h her w as not a ppel lan t. Appel lan t t est ified to his v ersi on of the ev ents
. He tes ti fied he w as asl eep in his st orag e uni t atthe ti me of the robber y , and sug g est ed St andke took the Lumina w it hout his per mis si on. He sai d he had an i dea w ho commi tted the robber

y , butdec li ned t o name t he person. H e deni ed ow nin g any g uns, and deni ed ev er

hav ing se en th e handg un found i n the st orag e uni t. H is tes ti mony emphas iz ed that he had no oppor

tuni ty to re tur n to the sto ra g e uni t after his ar re st but t hat S tandk e had s u c h o p p o rt u n it y. On ap peal , app ell ant’ s e v ide nti ar y su ff ic ien cy

co ntent io n a ls o focus es on th e evidence o f his iden tity as the robbe r. H e po ints ou t no ph y sical ev iden ce con nect s him to th e pizz a restau rant, no w itness f rom the rest aura nt iden tif ied him at trial as the rob ber, his fing er pr int s w ere not found on the handg un, h e deni ed ow nershi p of the g un, a nd th e maskfou n d i n h is storag e uni t w as not p osi ti v ely i denti fied as the one wor n by the per petrator
. Addi ti onal ly , app ell ant p oin ts to the facthe did not flee from off ic ers w hen he w as q uest ion ed abou t t he robber y the day after i ts o ccur re nce, and that he w as not16

arrested on tha t occasio n. App ellant also asserts tha t his height and w eight do no t ma tch the p hy si cal des cr ipt ion of the robber g iv en by the re sta urant mana g er . He cont ends the ev ide nce neg ati ng hi s g uil t si g nific antl y outw eig hs the e v ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on. W e di sag re e. Appell a n t ackno w led g es the robber drov e hi s w hit e Lumi na, a nd no conv inc ing ev ide nce poi nts to any dr iv er but appel lan t. Ev en from rev iew of t h e c o ld r e cord, t he inc re dib il ity

of Standk e’s tr ial testi mony att empti ng to ex cul pate appel lan t i s a pparent. The Sta te’s expert testif ied th e han dgun fo und w ith the ski ma sk and glov es in the storage unit wa s t h e gu n t h a tf ir e d t h e sh e ll fo u n d in t h e re s t a u ra n t , a n d t h e ju ry wa s f re e t o d is b e li e ve app ellant ’s denia l of

his ow nersh ip of

the gun. Even Sta ndke t estif ied she had seen him w it h a b lac k h andg un. Standk e’s w ri tten sta tement, w hic h the j ur y w as free t o ac ceptas the t ru th ov er

her tr ial tes ti mony , di re ctl y co nnect ed appe ll ant w it h t h e r obber y . W e s ee no record ev ide nce appel lan t’ s p hy si cal appearanc e differs si g nific antl y f ro m that g iv en by w it ness es at t he robber y sc ene. T h e p izza st ore manag er note d the robber

had a deep v oic e. Standk e tes ti fied appel lan t has a deep v oic e. Hav ing rev iew ed th e ent ire record, w e fi n d t h e e v i d e n c e i s n e i t h e r s o w e a k t h a t t h e j u r y ’ s v e rd i c t s e e ms c l e ar lyw ro ng and ma nifestly unju st, or tha t the evidence contrary to th e v erdict is such tha t the jury ’s v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Appell ant’ s l astpoi nt of er ro r is ov er ru led
.17

Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s p oin ts of error , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.