Opinion
No. 05-04-00856-CR
Opinion Filed March 31, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-72063-VN.
Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices, MOSELEY and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Columbus Seal Duren, Jr. guilty of burglary of a habitation. Appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs, and the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, he complains the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Diane Aguilar, the complainant, was the sole witness at trial. She testified she lived in an apartment with her twenty-one-year-old daughter. The complainant and Leslie Henry were good friends. They saw each other about once a month, but talked on the phone almost every day. Henry was dating appellant, whom she had met on the Internet. During the course of Henry's relationship with appellant, the complainant had contact with him on only a couple of occasions. On the night of the offense, Henry and the complainant went to a birthday party together. After the party, the complainant drove Henry home, then returned to her own home at about 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. Sometime between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m., the complainant heard a loud banging on her apartment door. As she was getting dressed and calling 911 on her cordless phone, appellant opened her bedroom door, asking "where Leslie was" and screaming "Leslie, Leslie." The complainant said he had a "crazy look" in his eyes that scared her. Appellant took the phone handset from the complainant's hand and ran out the front door of the apartment. The complainant did not see appellant again until the trial. The complainant testified appellant had kicked open the apartment's front door. In response to a question of whether the complainant would have let appellant into the apartment, she said that she might have, but would have made sure she knew who it was and what they wanted before opening the apartment door. The complainant never recovered her telephone handset. However, a few months before trial, the complainant received a new phone from Henry, which Henry said came from a friend of appellant's. Appellate review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is limited to determining whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); see also King v. State, 29 S.W. 3d 556, 562 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). In a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether a neutral review of the evidence demonstrates the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). A person commits burglary of a habitation if, without the effective consent of the owner, he enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a theft. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant entered the complainant's habitation without her effective consent and did commit and attempt to commit theft. Appellant asserts the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to show he intended to enter the apartment without the complainant's consent and to take her telephone. He claims he entered the apartment to find Henry, not to steal from the complainant. In support of this, he points to the fact that he took a phone that would not work once it was outside the range of the base unit and that he did not take other more valuable items. He also contends the complainant knew him and would have let him into the apartment. Whether or not the complainant would have let appellant into the apartment is not relevant. The evidence showed appellant entered the complainant's apartment in the middle of the night without her consent. Although appellant was calling out for Henry, he took the telephone from the complainant's hand and fled the apartment. The complainant never recovered the handset. A person's intent may be inferred from their acts, words, and conduct. See Hernandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Having reviewed all of the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. We overrule the appellant's points of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.