Court Opinion

ID: 9774899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:37:39.789505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:17.533892
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to support Garza’s conviction; albeit for different reasons. I disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s judgment and to remand the cause for further proceedings.
In the first point of error, the majority opinion states that, where there is independent evidence of a burglary, the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods may constitute sufficient evidence of guilt. Buchanan v. State, 780 S.W.2d 467, 469 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref’d). The majority also states that, even if there were no evidence of a burglary, Garza’s possession of stolen property could war*24rant an inference of guilt if the possession was personal, recent, unexplained, and involved a distinct and conscious assertion of right to the property. Robinson v. State, 658 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1983, no pet.) Here, a police officer stopped Garza and Connor while they were carrying one of the ladders, and the men explained that they had found the ladder in the grass. Thus, Garza’s possession of the ladder was not unexplained.
Garza contests the element of “entering” the building in his conviction for burglary of a building. I would affirm the conviction because there is evidence that Garza entered the building. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the witness Reyna saw Garza exiting the building and carrying a long ladder. Reyna stated that he saw Garza “leaving, coming out of the building” and that Garza exited from the rear of the building. Although Reyna testified alternately that Garza was coming out of the building and that Garza already had exited the building when he saw him, the trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the witnesses and may believe or disbelieve all or any part of any witness’s testimony. Williams v. State, 692 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). Thus, I concur in the result of the first point of error.
I disagree with the majority’s disposition of the second point of error. The majority sets aside the punishment — ten years’ confinement, probated for ten years, and $1250 in restitution — and remands the cause to the trial court. The majority contends that it cannot determine the proper amount of restitution from the record and, thus, that it cannot modify the amount of restitution.
I believe the proper amount of restitution, $1240, can be determined from the record. The building’s owner, Jeffrey Lynn Wells, testified that his “total loss” was $1240. This amount “would cover the ladders stolen” and the repair to the building. Wells recovered the stepladder. It was about to be disassembled, but it was salvageable. The majority states that the amount of restitution should be $1240 minus the cost of the recovered stepladder.
The evidence supports the determination that the building owner’s total loss was $1240. Although the amount includes the “stolen ladders,” it does not necessarily follow — simply because one ladder was later recovered and it was salvageable — that the owner did not suffer a loss in the value of that ladder. The trial court could have inferred that the $1240 “total loss” included the loss of one ladder and the loss in value of the other ladder. Thus, I would modify the amount of restitution from $1250, for which there is not support in the record, to $1240. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.