Opinion
No. 05-04-00042-CR
Opinion issued July 21, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-40364-IW. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and O'NEILL.
OPINION
In this case, Joshua James Taylor appeals his conviction for burglary of a building. He contends in a single point of error that the evidence against him is factually insufficient. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment. During a "deep night shift" patrol in a retail area, a police officer noticed an unoccupied vehicle, which had not been there previously, tucked between two dumpsters. Looking inside the vehicle, the officer saw various hand tools, including screwdrivers, a four-way tire wrench, and pliers. He informed dispatch about the suspicious vehicle and began to check the area. While he was patrolling, he saw a man walking inside the lot of a closed car dealership. While backup police were arriving, the original officer saw two tall thin men running toward the back fence of the car lot. One of the men was wearing a tan colored coat. At the car dealership, a window-unit air conditioner had been shoved through the window of a portable building. Computer equipment and other items were missing from the building, and radios were missing from some of the dealership's cars. Officers searched the immediate vicinity, and appellant and a companion were found lying face down in a wooded area near the burglarized car dealership. One of them was wearing tan coveralls, and they had the same general build as described by the original officer. One of them was wearing gloves. Evidence at trial revealed that, when they were discovered, appellant's cohort confessed to police. Appellant, however, claimed they had come to the car dealership simply to check out the cars. Later, he told an officer he and his friend had gone behind the car dealership to smoke. Items stolen from the car dealership were found outside the car lot's fence, not far from where appellant and his cohort were apprehended. The items were not fingerprinted by police. The suspicious car first noticed by the officer was registered to appellant's father or stepfather. Police found a hole cut in the fence surrounding the car dealership after appellant and his friend were in custody. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the evidence supporting his conviction is factually insufficient. He specifically complains the evidence against him is "purely circumstantial" and, although he was found near the scene of the burglary, no evidence placed him in the burglarized car lot or the burglarized building. When reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence, but not in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The question under a factual sufficiency challenge is whether, considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 WL 840786, *7 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr. 21, 2004). Evidence can be factually insufficient if it is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or if contrary evidence exists that is strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. Zuniga, at *7. In examining a factual sufficiency challenge, we defer to the factfinder's determination of the credibility of the evidence. Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Here, appellant was found in the early morning hours lying face down near a man who confessed to burglarizing the car dealership when — by appellant's own conflicting accounts — appellant should have been browsing for cars on the lot or smoking with his companion. He and his companion matched a police officer's description of men the officer saw running toward the back fence of the car lot. Moreover, the suspicious vehicle found at the scene belonged to appellant's father or stepfather and was stocked with hand tools, convenient for burglarizing buildings and cars. After viewing all the evidence under the appropriate standard, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction for burglary of a building. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.