Because Mr. Lopez cannot show prejudice from the late filing of the findings and conclusions, reversal is not required. Alternatively, Mr. Lopez argues that the evidence does not support his convictions for malicious mischief or residential burglary. He contends the residential burglary conviction depends on the validity of the malicious mischief conviction, which in turn depends solely on circumstantial evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Our concern is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is considered as reliable as direct evidence.
Mr. Lopez contends the court improperly relied on an inference that because the globe was broken while he was in the house, he knowingly and maliciously broke it. He contends the inference that the globe was broken accidentally is equally likely. In review of the sufficiency of the evidence, however, we interpret any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State. Mr. Lopez confuses inferences arising from the evidence with permissive inferences used in jury instructions. But the trial court in this case was not dealing with an instruction like the ones in Jackson and Brunson , which stated that any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime therein.