NO. 07-07 -035 8-CR NO. 07-07 -035 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 MA Y30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ KEN NE TH G LEN N W EBB, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; ST NO. 18, 617 -B & 18,6 18-B; HON. JOHN B. BOA RD, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Kennet h Gl enn W ebb app eal s h is co nv ic ti o n s for burg lar iz ing a ha bit ati on and
ass aul ti ng a publ icserv ant. His points of error concer n the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing thos e c onv ic ti ons. W e aff ir m. Appl ic able Law T he sta nda rds by w hich w e rev iew le gal an d factu al suf

f iciency challen ges are w ell est abl is hed. W e refer t he par ti es to Jacks on v

. Vi rgini a, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S .C t. 2781, 612

L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 979) and W ats on v . St ate, 204 S.W .3d 404 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) for a n ex pl an at i on o f t he m. Back gr ound On D ecember

28, 2006, around 12 :40 a .m., Serg eant Dus ti n Pond er ar ri v ed at 410 3 Escon dido to investig ate a security alarm thathad so und ed. He w as no t dressed in
a reg ula r patrol uni form but ra ther w as w ear ing a po lo shi rtw it h a s mall pol ic e depar tment emblem on i t, a pol ic e badg e aff ix ed to hi s bel t, and a ser v ic e w eapon. As Ponde r w alk ed
around t he hous e, ap pel lan t w alk ed outof the b acky ard throug h a w ooden g ate n ext t o the driv eway . T he of

f icer stop ped app ellant and asked w het her he liv ed there. App ellantsaid that he di d notand then ra n aw ay w hen as ked for i denti ficat ion

. Ponder g av e c hase and t he t wo str ug g led at some p oin t. D ur ing the str ug g le, Ponder tw ic e i denti fied hi msel f as a pol ic e off ic er . Non ethel ess , appel lan t str uck him in the g ro in and reg ain ed hi s freedom. Anothe r chas e ens ued, w hic h resul ted i n appel lan t
re achi ng hi s t ruck t h a t w as par ked in the a ll ey near the house i n q uest ion

. As appel lan t attempt ed to star

t the v ehi cl e, Ponder

g ra bbed t he k ey s. In respon se, appel lan t g ra bbed the off ic er ’s arm and threatened to cuthi m. E v entual ly , ano ther pol ic eman, w ho happ ened to be w ear ing a s tandard pol ic e uni form, ar ri v ed. Yet, appel lan t c onti nued t o refuse to obey the v er bal orders o f both pol ic emen, t houg h the y ev entual ly

su bdued h im. Af ter the arrest, Pon der retu rned to the hom e w here app ellantw as f irst
encou ntered. He did not enter i t bec ause no one w as there a n d t h e doors w ere l ock ed. Mo re ov er , from peer ing throug h the win d ow s, the o ff ic er co ncl uded t hat n othi ng i nsi de looke d as if

it had be en d isturbe d. Yet, inv estigation rev eale d black prym arks o n a ba ck doo r by the locks, a nd a pry

bar or tire iron was foun d on the fron t seat of app ellant ’s truck.3

T he b ar had “black a ll o v er it” according to the pro secut or w ho warned ot hers against handl ing i t ex ces si v ely

. So t oo had the t ip of t h e t o o l b e en modi fied, a cc ordin g to an off ic er , i n a w ay

to g iv e i t more bi te w hen us ed as a pr y ing dev ic e. The ow ner s o f

the resi dence w ere out of tow n at the t ime of the i nci dent but returne d late r that sam e da y . T h e y d is covered tha t som eon e ha d inde ed b een in their hou se an d tha t a Visa de bit card an d several checks w ere m issing. T he hom eowner also tes ti fied th at he had eng ag ed bot h the dead bol t and door kn ob l ock

before lea v ing but that onl y the door kn ob l ock

w as eng ag ed w hen he re tur ned home. None of the item s missing f rom the h ouse were foun d on app ellanto r in th e truck. Non ethel ess , s omeone c harg ed i tems to the debi t card lat er thatday and at a ti me w hen appel lan t w as in jai l. The pe rs on w ho made the c harg es w ent u nid enti fied. Ass ault on a Publ

ic Ser vant W e i nit ial ly

addres s w hether

the ev ide nce w as both l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t to sup port th e con v iction for assau lting a public serv ant . Th e thrustof app ellant ’s
com plaintfocuse d on w het her he knew the person he w as assau lting w as a po lice of f icer. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. T he reco rd conta ins evi den ce illustrating thatPond er w ore a shirt w ith a po lice emblem on i t and ca rr ied a badg e on his bel t atthe ti me he i nit ial ly enc ountered appe ll ant. Fur ther , t he area of the ini ti al encou nter w as w ell l it , ac cordin g to the off ic er . The off ic er als o tes t i fi e d t h a t w h i l e h e w a s b e i n g a s s a u l t e d b y a p p e l l a n t , h e i d e n t i fi e d h i ms e l f as an o f f ic e r; t h is d i d n o td is s u a d e a p p e ll a n tfo r t h e a s s a u ltco n t in u e d b o t h wh e n t h e two grapp led w hile afoot and w hen app ellant (w hen sitting in the truck) grabb e d t h e o f f icer’s
ar m and t hreatened to “c ut” hi m.4

One i s p re sumed to k now thathe a ss aul ted a publ icse rv ant i f the v ic ti m w as
w ea r i ng a di s ti nc ti v e un i for m or ba dg e i nd i c at i ng th e pe rs on ’ s em pl oy me nt as a pub lic
ser v ant. T EX
. P EN
. C OD E A NN
. §22.02( c) (V er non Supp. 2007)

. W hil e Off ic er Ponde r w as notado rned in the stan dard o r ste reotypic p olice uniform at the t ime , the e mb lem o n his shi rtco upl ed w it h the presenc e of hi s b adg e and ser v ic e we a pon c oul d reason abl y be li kened to dis ti nct iv e i tems ide nti fyi ng him as an of ficer

. To thi s w e had the e v ide nce that he ide ntif ied him self

to app ellantas an of

f icer w hile be ing assa u lted. Combin ed, this is
some e v ide nce from w hic h a rati onal factfinder co uld co ncl ude, bey ond reason abl e doubt , that appel lan t k new

he was ass aul ti ng an o ff ic er . Thoug h appel lan t c ontradi cte d much of w hat Ponder sai d and procl aimed that he did not know

thatPonde r w as an of

ficer , that s impl y

rais ed c re dib il ity

and factual i ss ues for the factfinder

to re sol v e. W e c annot say thatthe manner

in w hic h theyw ere reso lv ed w as so ag ain st the g re at w eig h t o f t h e ev ide nce or

su ppor ted b y w eak ev ide nce as to under mine our

co nfiden ce in tha t findi ng . Con seq uentl y , t he v erdict had the suppo rtof both leg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Bur gla ry of a Habitati

on Next, w e address the conv ic ti on for burg lar iz ing a ha bit ati on. Acc ordin g to appel lan t, he bel iev ed the ev ide nce w as defici ent si nce it did not pla ce h im w it h in the home. W hil e resol uti on of thi s i ss ue i s more probl emati c, w e, no nethel ess , ov er ru le it

. That burg lar

y can be prov en sol ely throug h ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is a w ell -s ettl ed proposi ti on. Gi

lbe rt son v. State, 563 S.W .2d 606 , 608 (Te x . Crim. App

. 197 8). It is also tr ue th at t he el ement of ent ry ca n be est abl is hed by

i nferenc e. Blevi

ns v. State, 6 S. W .3d 566, 569 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1999, pet. ref’d)

.W hi l e ev i dence ofpr i or bad act s or convi ct i ons cannot nor m al l y be used t o suppor t an i nf er ence of 1 gui l t , t hi s t est i m ony cam e i n wi t hout obj ect i on. And, when t hat occur s, t he e v i dence i s dee m ed a dm i t t ed f or a l l p u rp o s e s . D e lg a d o v . S ta te , 23 5 S

. W

. 3d 24 4, 25 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 07 ). 5 Here, w e hav e ev iden ce t h a t the debitca rd and chec ks w ere presentw hen t he home o wne rs le ft on v acat ion and w ere mi ss ing w hen t hey retur ned. To thi s w e add
a p p e ll a n t ’s a d m is s io n t h a t h e wa s in n e e d o f m o n e y t o b u y ga s fo r hi s t ru c k , t h a th e d ro ve throu gh the area and d own th e particu lar a lley in se arch of

gas to ste al or items f rom which gas could be obta ined . And, tho ugh he initially sugg este d tha t he was w illing to ask pe ople he enc ountered w hil e g oin g throug h the area for money , he ra n from the onl y person he met. Mo re ov er , he w as cog niz ant of the ar t of burg lar iz ing homes g iv en hi s p ri or co nv ic ti on fo r th e sa m e . So to o di d he ha ve a to o l th a t c o u ld be us e d to gain en tr a n ce th ro u gh 1 loc ked doors readi ly a vail abl e on (rather than under

or behi nd) the seatof his tr uck and tha t too l had be en mod if ied to facilitate forced entry. Most imp ortan tly , the tool ha d a black subst ance on it tha t app aren tly lef t black residu e, an d black residu e w as foun d in the pry mark s ( w hic h mar ks w ere notpresentw hen t he homeow ners l eft). F ina ll y , no one els e w as found at t he s cene. App ellant ’s havi ng a need for mo ney, his picking a particu lar area for the p urpo se of commi tti ng some theft late at nig ht, his posses si on of a pr y bar or ti re i ro n s uit abl e and ada pte d for com mitt ing burgl ary , his presen ce a tt h e scene w hen the bu rg lar alarm sound ed, t he ev idence that the b urg lar al ar m w as setto tr ig g er w hen s omeone ent ered throu gh a d oor or window, th e similarity in co lor b etween the resid ue em itted f rom th e tire iron and found in the p ry mar ks , hi s a ttemptto flee w hen c o n f ro n te d , t he abs ence of
ev ide nce ind ic ati ng t h a t any one el se w as present , and the absen ce of items from t heAn off i cer t est i f i ed t hat t he usual m odus oper andi f or bur gl ar s was t o l eav e door s ope n when t hey 2 l ef t t he sce ne. 6 house co nst it ute s ome ev ide nce from w hic h a rati o n a l factfinder co uld i nfer, bey ond
re asona ble doubt , t hat a ppel lan t ent ered th e abode

. T h a t n o n e of

th e m iss in g ite m s were fo u n d on hi s pe rso n o r in th e tr u ck is t ro u b lin g, as is the ev ide nce that the d ebi t c ard w as used by someone w hil e appel lan t s at i n j ail and that the d oors w er e l ock ed. W hil e thi s s ug g est s t hat someone other than appel lan t 2 acq uired atl eastone of the s tol en i tems, i t doe s n ot neces sar il y di sprov e hi s e ntr

y i nto t he abode. Indeed, it coul d be that dur ing the chas e appel lan t w as dis cardin g the it ems t aken and t hat t he debi t c ard w as lat er found by someone els e. Admittedl y , t his pos si bil ity w ent undev elo ped attr ial . So too w as itpossi ble that someone else w as w it h appel lan t atthe t im e fo r O f

f ic e r P o n d e r s t a t e d t h a tsu c h a p e rs o n w o u l d h a ve h a d e n o u gh t im e t o le a ve
w hil e the off ic er

g av e c h a se a n d foug ht w it h appel lan t. Be that as itmay , nei ther proposi ti on finds suppor t in the rec ord; y et becaus e the y are pot enti al log ic al ex pla nati ons of how so meone ot her than appel lan t w as usi ng the card, w e c annot say thatev ide nce of
someone els e us ing i t req uires one t o i nfer t hat s omeone ot her than appel lan t c ommitt ed the burglary . Use of

the card bya third party is a piece of the puzz le tha t doe s not rea dily fit buti t does not prev ent a vi ew er f ro m nonethe les s rec og niz ing the pi ctu re di spl ay ed by the remaini ng pi eces . Nor ca n w e s ay

thatthe fact th at t he doors w e re l o ck e d c auses g re at c oncer n. Testi mony

appears o f rec ord i ndi cat ing thatthou g h a d oor i s p ri ed o p en, i t c an often be cl osed and l ock ed after the forced entr

y . And, w hil e appel lan t c ontradi cte d much of w hat Off ic er Ponde r sai d, t hat s impl y rais ed q uest ion s o f factand credi bil ity for the factfinder

to7

re so lv e. In toto , w e c a n n o t s a y t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s w e r e o f s u c h i mp o rt s o a s to under mi n e o u r

c o n fi d e n c e i n t h e v e rd i c t , e s p e c i a l l y i n v i e w o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o s s e ss ing burg lar y i mplement s, his av ow ed need for moneyand int ent t o c ommit theft, hi s e ffort t o flee, his presenc e at the sc ene and near the ti me the ala rm sound ed, and t h e sim ilari ty bet w een the residu e on the d oor an d on the tire too l. Thu s, w e con clude thatthe evidence
w as both leg all y

and factual ly

suff ic ien t to suppor

t the conv ic ti on of burg lar y of a habi tati on. Havi ng ov erruled a ppe llant’s issues, w e af f irm the judgmen ts.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.