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

NO. 03-05-00215- CR

Da nie l R ay Re sa , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF SAN SABA COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 5406, H ONO RAB LE V. MURRAY JO RDAN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appellant Daniel Ray Resa g uilty of burg lary

of a ha bitation. See T e x. Pe n. Cod e An n. § 3 0. 02 (a )( 3) (We st 200 3)

. Th e c ou rt imp os e d a sixty -y e a r pr iso n ter m. I n h is o nly po int of e rr or , a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th e c ourt e rr e d by re fu sin g to ins tr uc t the jur y on c ri min a l tr e sp a ss as a le sser include d offe nse. We will overrule this contention and aff irm the conviction. At a bo ut 1 2:3 0 a .m. on

Ap ri l 11 , 20 04 , Joe Do bie a nd his wi fe Di a ne we re a sle e p in their re sidence in rural San Saba County when they

wer e aw akene d by

a loud noise followed by

the sound of g lass brea

king. B oth J oe and D iane testified tha t they hear d two voices c oming f rom the uti lity ro om d ow n th e ha ll f

ro m th e ir be dr oo m. Joe g ot up to inv e sti g a te , ta kin g wi th him a .2 2 r if le he kept by

the bed. In the dar

k hallway , he sawthe silhouette of a ma n holding a

pistol and said,

“ Y’ a ll s top ri g ht t

he re .” Th e int

ru de r f ir e d a sh ot, str iki ng the wall beside him . Joe a tte mpt e d to2

return fire, but his rifle misfired. A second shot w as fired, this time in the utilit y room, striking the washing machine. Then a third shot was fir ed fr om outside the house, shatteringa kitchen w indow. J oe proc eede d into the ut ility room, g rabbe d another rifle he kept t here , and steppe d onto the porch. He sa w two men fle eing into the brush. Both men f ired a t J oe, and he returne d their fire

. I t is undisput ed that the two a ssailants were appellant and his br other, Ada m Resa. Th e e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t th e y ha d b ro ke n the loc k on the g a te to the Do bie s’ pr op e rt y , d ri ve n p a rt
way to the residenc e in appe llant’s truck, a nd then walke d the rest of t he way to the Dobies’ house

. They wer e ar med with a pistol and a shotgun they took from J oe Dobie’ s pickup, which wa s parke d be sid e the ho us e . T he e vid e nc e su g g e sts that Adam Resa wi e lde d the pis tol wh ic h fir e d th e sh ots i n s i d e t h e h o u s e, wh i l e ap p el l an tu s ed t h e s h o t gu n wh i ch wa s fi re d o n l y o n ce . I t h ad b ee n ra i n i n g, and sets of muddy

footprints showed that the men ha d walked a round t h e h o u s e checking the windows befor e they

enter ed. I n their flig ht, the brothers beca me separ ated. Appellant made it ba ck to his truc k and drove a way . Adam wa s tracke d by a dog as he w alked a cross c ountry and wa s found hiding in a tree
. Appellant wa s arr ested late r t hat ni g ht and gave two statements t o the pol ice. I n the first, he a dmitted driving onto the Dobies’ proper ty but sa id tha t it was his brother who ha d alone e ntere d the house. I n his second stateme nt, appellant said that he “had a ll the fault in this” and that his brother “ had no idea what was g oing on.”

Th e i n d i c t m e n t a l l e g e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t i n t e n t i on a lly

a nd kn ow ing ly

e nte re d th e Do bie s’ ha bit a tio n w ith ou t e ff

e c tiv e c on se nt a

nd the n a nd the re co mmi tte d a

nd a tte mpt e d to c omm it ag g ravated assault. Se e id . T he c ou rt ’s c ha rg e tr a c ke d th e ind ic tme nt a nd a uth or ize d th e jur

y toAt a separ ate t r i al , Ad am R es a wa s co n v i ct ed o f b u r g l ar y o f a h ab i t at i o n and 1 sentenc ed to for ty year s in pr ison. T his conviction was af fir med in R es a v . S

tat e , N o. 03-05- 00315-C R (T ex. App.

—

Austin F eb. 10, 2006, no pet. ) (not designa ted for publication). Appellant and his brother wer e trespassing on the Dobies’ land, but this offense w as 2 not included within the proof ne cessa ry to establish the burg lary

of the Dobie s’ house. 3 convict appe llant both as the primary actor and as a party criminally responsible for Adam Resa’ s conduct. Se e id . § 7.02(a) (2). 1

A d e fe nd a nt i s e nti tle d to a le sse r inc lud e d off

e ns e ins tr uc tio n if the le sse r o ff

e ns e is included within the proof nece ssary to e stablish the of fense char g ed and if

there is some evidence that would permit the jury to rationally

find that the def

endant, if g uilty , is guilty

only of the lesse r offe nse. Ro us se au v . S

tat e , 8 55 S.W. 2d 66 6, 67 2- 73 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). Un de r t he fa c ts i n th is

c a u s e , c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s w a s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e p r o o f n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e a l l e g e d

b u r g l a r y. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. 30.05( a)( 1) (West Supp. 2005)

. Thus, the question become s whether there is e vid e nc e to s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat a

pp e lla nt w a s g uil ty

on ly of c ri min a l tr e sp a ss. Appellant ar g ues that he w as entitled to a c riminal trespass instruction bec ause the

e vid e nc e ra ise s is su e s as to whe the r he e nte re d the Do bie s’ re sid e nc e a nd wh e the r h e e nte re d w ith the intent to commit assault. Assuming this to be true, neither issue entitled appellant to a criminal trespass instruction. I f appe llant did not enter the house, he was not g uilt y as a p ri m ar y actor of either bur g lary

or cr iminal trespass. And the intent w ith whic h the entry into the house was made 2

wa s ir re le va nt b e c a us e a pp e lla nt wa s no t ind ic te d un de r se c tio n 30 .0 2( a )( 1) (e nte re d w ithint e nt t o
c omm it a ssa

ult ), bu t un der

se c tio n 3 0. 02 (a )( 3) (e nte re d a nd c omm itt e d o r atte mpt e d to c omm it assault).4 The unc ontradicte d evidenc e esta blishes that at le ast one of the Resa brothers e ntere d the Dobies’ r esidenc e without eff ective c onsent and ther ein commit t ed t h e offe nse of a g g ravated assault. On the e vidence in this record, the jury could have rationally

conclude d that appellant wa s g uilty of the a lleg ed burg lary

either a s the primary actor or as a party to his brother’s c onduct, but there was no basis for a rational finding that appellant was g uilty only of cr iminal trespass. The point of er ror is over

ruled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: May

12, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh