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

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444
NO. 03-05-00854- CV

In the Matte r of F.F .G.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 6,20 2 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
We withdraw our O ctober 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 opinion and judgme nt, and substitute this opinion in order to a ddress a

n err or ra ised in F.F .G.’s motion for r ehea ring . Whil e we ag ree with F.F .G. that a motion for new

trial was not re quired to pre serve the issue of fac tual sufficie ncy , we a dhere to the holding in our or igina l opinion that the evidence presented is fac tually sufficie nt to support the trial court’s a djudic at i o n , and thus overr ule F.F .G.’s motion for re hear ing, which re quested that we
reve rse the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

F.F .G. appe als from his adjudication as delinquent based on the offe nse of c riminal mischief re sulting in pec uniary loss in an amount more than $50 but le ss tha n $500. See Tex. P enal2

Code Ann. § 28.03 (West Supp. 2006). After a djudicating F.F .G. delinquent, the tria l court plac ed F.F .G. on nine m o n t h s ’ probation and order ed him to pay restitution of $408. I n his sole point of
err or, F .F.G. c ontends that the evide nce pr esente d at trial is fac tually insufficient to support the trial court’s a djudication of delinquenc y . We affir m the trial court’ s adjudication.

. BACK GR OUND

On Marc h 7, 2005, at appr ox imately 3:50 p.m., Goldia Earls was working when she
re c e ive d a

c a ll f ro m he r s ist e r s tatin g that so me on e ha d sh a tte re d Ea rl s’ s din ing ro om w ind owwi th
a roc k. Earls told her sister to call the police, the n heade d home. Once both Earls and the pol ice had arr ived at Ea rls’s home, Ly dia Martinez—Ear ls’s next-door neig hbor––ca

me over and explained that s h e h ad s een the person who thr ew the r ock thr ou g h E arl s’ s w ind ow . Mart ine z te sti fi e d that sh e sa w F .F .G ., wh o is a wh ite ma le , sta nd ingwi th three Afric an-A merica

n teena g ers in a circ le out side her kitchen window. Martinez further testified that she saw F .F.G. c arr

y ing a rock w hich he thre w throug h Earls’s w ind o w, an d then the four te e na g e rs imm e diate ly

ra n a c ro ss t he str e e t. Martinez telephoned the police to re port the cr ime. After the police a

rrived a nd l i s t e n e d t o M art i n e z ’ s a c c o u n t , t h e y s u s p e c t e d F
. F
. G
. b e c a u s e h e w a s p arto f

a g r o u p o f b o ys matching Martinez’s d es cr i p t i o n that they had noticed pla

ying down the stree t. Accor ding to he r testimony , beca

use F .F.G. lived acr oss the street from both Martinez and Ea rls, Martinez rec og nized him and was a

ble to identi fy h i m as the per son who threw the rock throug h Earls’s w indow. Martinez also testified that Earls was only a passing acqua intance whom Martinez did not know by3

name, that she had never had a problem with F .F.G. or his mother befor e, and that she did not know F.F .G. by name be fore the trial but did rec og nize him from the neig hborhood. Both F .F.G.’ s mother, Donna Sanders, and his supervisor, Shara Kohrs, testified that F.F .G. spent the da

y workingfor Guy Bundy and Kohrs fix ing up a duplex around the corne r fr om Earls’s house . Sanders testified that she dropped F .F.G. of f at wor k that morning and that F.F .G. had
rec eived a

chec k for $20 f

or his day ’s work. H oweve r, Sander s was not with her son at the time the rock w as thrown throug h Earls’s w indow.

Ad dit ion a lly , K oh rs te sti fi e d that F. F .G . wa s wor kin g fo r h e r p re pa

ri nga du ple x to be re nted and that she did not see F .F.G. le ave t h e wo rk si te. Fur ther, Kohr s testified that eve n though she had not kept F.F.G. in her sight t he entire time, she di d not think it possible that F.F .G. could have left without her knowle dg e.

Ko hr s a lso te sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d b e e n invo lve d in ve rb a l a lte rc a tio ns wi th b oth Ea rl s
and Ea rl s’ s d a ug hte r a nd tha t sh e ha d p re vi ou sly

c a lle d th e po lic e on

se ve ra l oc c a sio ns be c a

us e Earls’s da ug hter ha d thrown roc ks throug h Kohrs’s windows. The juvenile c ourt was a lso presente d with evidence of Kohrs’ s criminal re cord.

F.F .G. testified that he did not throw the rock throug h Earls’s window and did n ot see the actua l perpe trator.

Finally , the cour

t was pre sented with evide nce that the cost of re pairs to Ear ls’s broken w indow totaled $408.
DI SCU SSIO N

As a pr e lim ina

ry matte r, we mus t a dd

re ss t he State ’s argume nt that F .F .G . f a ile d to pr op e rl y pr e se rv e the iss ue of fa c tua l suf fi c ie nc y . Th e State argue s th a t be c a us e the Te xas F a mil y4

Cod e mand a te s th a t juve nil e de lin qu e nc y pr oceedi ngs are g ov e rn e d b y the Te xas R

ule s o f C ivi l Procedur e, see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.17( a) ( West S upp. 2006), F. F. G. was re quired to file a motion for new tria l to preser ve his fac tual sufficie ncy complaint. Howeve r, F .F.G. w as adjudicated delinquent in a benc h trial; a mot ion for new t rial i s only require d to prese rve complaints about the fac tual sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e supporting jury finding s. Tex. R . App. P. 33.1(d); Tex. R. C iv. P . 324 (b )( 2) ; W

estec h Eng’g, Inc . v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc. , 8 3 5 S. W. 2 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 7 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1992, n o p et
. ). We hold that F.F.G . proper ly prese rved his fa ctual suff iciency complaint for a

ppellate r eview. I t is well s ettled t hat i n juvenile proceeding s the S tate must prove e ach e lement of the
a l l e g e d d e l i n qu e n tc o n d

u c tb e yo n d

a r e a s o n a

b l e d o u b tt o s u p p o rtana d

j u d i c a t i o no f

d e l i n qu e n c y. Jacks on v . V

irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); In re L.M. , 9 9 3 S. W. 2 d 276, 284 (Tex. App.––Austin 1999, no pet.). I n a factual sufficiency revie w, t he re viewing court “ views all th e ev i d en ce without the prism of ‘in the light most favor able to the pr osecution.’” Clewis v. Sta te , 922 S.W .2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). I n such a r eview, the cou rt as k s whether a neutra l reviewof all the e vidence , both for and a g ainst the finding , demonstrates that the proof of g uilt is so weak that the finding is clear ly wrong and manife stly

unjust or that the contra

ry evidenc e g reatly outw ei gh s the evidenc e of guilt so t hat the findingis ag ainst the g reat weig ht and prepo n d er an ce o f the e vidence
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Appellate c ourts are not free to rewe igh the evidenc e and se t aside the juvenile court’s adjudica tion
mere ly beca use the re viewing judge s determine that a diffe rent re sult is m ore r easona ble. Cle wis , 92 2 S. W.2 d at 13 5. A f

a c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w m

us t e mpl oy

a pp ro pri ate defe rence to t he fa c t-5

f i n d e r ’ s r o l e a s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f c r e d i b i l i t y an d

t h e w e i g h tt o b e g i v e nt o w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y. Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 7.

To a dju dic a te F .F .G . d e lin qu e nt, the tr ia l c ourt ha d to fi nd that F .F .G . in te nti on a lly damag ed or destroy ed Ea

rls’s window without her pe rmission. See Tex. Penal C ode Ann. § 28.03. The juvenile c ourt hea

rd evide nce that Earls neve r g ave F .F.G. pe rmission to destroy her w i n dow and that Martinez saw F.F.G
. throw t he rock that broke Earls’s window. This evidenc e, taken alone, is sufficient to justify

the trial cour

t’s adjudication of F .F.G. a s delinquent and guilty of criminal mischief beyond a re asonable doubt.

Fur thermore , beca

use t h e t es t imony

of F .F.G.’ s witnesses does not rule out the possibili ty

that F.F .G. could have broken Earls’s window, we cannot s ay that the contra ry evidenc e prese nted by F.F .G. is so strong that the trial court’s adjudication is a g ainst the g reat w ei gh t and prepon d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e . F ir s t, F
. F
. G
. ’ s mo th e r te s ti f ie d th a t s h e dr o p p e d o f

f F .F.G. a nd picked him up later

in the day , at which time he had a chec k for $20. Howeve r, there is no e vidence in the rec ord that she wa s exercisi n g an y control over

or super vising F .F.G. a

round the time that Earls’s window was br oken. Dur ing that unsupervised time, he c ould have br oken the window a s Martinez testified.

Next, Kohrs testified th at s he had be en super vising F .F.G. a ll day

and that it was imp os sib le fo r h im t o h a ve br ok e n th e wi nd owin q ue sti on . H ow e ve r, g ive n th e relativ e ly c los e proxi mity of F .F.G.’ s work site to Ear ls’s house, Kohrs’ s testimony that she did not keep w atch ove r F.F .G. the entire time ope ns up the possibili ty that he might have had the time to bre ak the window.

Ra the r t ha n p ro vid ingc on tr ary

e vid e nc e so str on g that th e c ourt ’s adj ud ic a tio n is ag ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, the testimony of both F.F .G.’s mother6

and Ko h r s s e e ms to b e c o mp a ti b le w it h th e St a te ’ s th e o r

y o f th e c a s e b a s e d

u p o nM arti n ez’s testimony beca use both witnesses lef

t open the possibility

that F.F .G. could have slipped awa y from work to bre ak the window. A lthough Ma rtinez’s testimony

was c halleng ed by

F. F. G. ’s own testimony that he did not throw the roc k throug h the window, we will defer to the juvenile cour

t’s evaluation of Martinez’s testimony as more c redible tha

n F.F .G.’s. Johnson , 23 S.W .3 d at 7. Kee ping in mind the def

ere nce we are to g ive to the fac t-finder as the sole judg e of the weig ht a

nd cre dibilit y of witness testimony , we hold that the evidenc e is suf ficient to support the juvenile cour

t’s adjudication. B eca

use ea ch witness for

F.F .G. (other than F.F .G. himself) off ere d testimony that the juvenile cour

t could have viewed as either damag ing the witness’s cr edibility or leavingopen the possibility that F.F .G. could have c ommitt ed the c rime and be cause of Mar tinez’s independe nt ey ewitness testi m o n y , we ca n n o t say that the proof of

g uilt is so weak that the trial court’s a djudication is clear ly wrongor manife stly

unjust or t hat t he contrary evidenc e is so strong that the juvenile cour

t’s finding of g uilt bey ond a reasonable doubt is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. We over rule F .F.G.’ s point of error
. CO NC LU SION Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d F .F .G .’ s o nly

iss ue , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

_____________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Affir med on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: Nove mber 29, 2006