No. 05-03-00120-CR.
April 6, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-01056-VK. Disposition.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices O'NEILL and LANG-MIERS.
Opinion By Chief Justice THOMAS.
A jury convicted Patrick Dale Flanigan of burglary of a habitation. During the punishment phase, appellant pleaded not true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced appellant to thirty-two years' confinement. In a single point of error, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
LaOllie Taylor, the complainant, lived in a ground-floor apartment located at 8620 Park Lane. In March 2002, Taylor purchased a 1991 Honda Accord from appellant and then sold her burgundy colored 1984 Crown Victoria to appellant. A few weeks later, Taylor purchased a forty-gallon aquarium from appellant who set it up in her living room. Appellant began coming by to visit Taylor until she asked him to stop. Taylor went to New York and, while she was away, she parked her car at a friend's house because she suspected appellant had a key to the vehicle. When Taylor returned, she saw appellant pacing outside her apartment. He asked if something was wrong with her car because he had not seen it lately. Taylor told appellant there was nothing wrong with the car. The next day Taylor went to the grocery store around twelve o'clock. When she returned home, she found that the living room and bedrooms had been ransacked. A twenty-seven-inch television, VCR, play station game, satellite receiver, a twenty-inch television and VCR, and king sized gray sheets and some pillow cases were missing. Taylor went outside to call the police and saw the back of a burgundy car drive between the apartment buildings. Taylor testified the back of that vehicle looked like the car she had sold to appellant. Two days later, she talked to a neighbor, Nicole Hunt, who said that on the day of the burglary she saw a man with gray sheets that appeared to be full of items. From this discussion with her neighbor, Taylor determined that appellant was the person that was seen carrying the objects in the gray sheets. Taylor called the detective assigned to her case and gave him appellant's name. Taylor testified she did not give appellant permission to enter her residence and take her property. Detective Jeffrey Bowman telephoned Taylor a few days after the burglary. Bowman testified that Taylor told him about a witness and gave him appellant's name as the suspect. Bowman testified that he interviewed Nicole Hunt, who lived in Taylor's apartment complex. Hunt's third-floor apartment was in a building next to Taylor's and her patio faced Taylor's apartment. Hunt told Bowman she saw a man carrying a bundle wrapped in gray sheets. When Bowman showed Hunt a six-photograph lineup, she picked appellant's photograph as the man with the sheets. Hunt testified that she was staying with her mother in the third-floor apartment. The patio area was enclosed with metal railing that had wide spaces between each rail. Hunt was on the patio talking to her husband when she saw a man put a "sack" on top of a retaining wall that was made of stacked railroad ties. Hunt identified appellant in open court as the man she saw with the sack. Hunt testified appellant was wearing black gloves and black or dark gray pants and shirt. The "sack" was gray sheets that appeared to be filled with "things" because it was "lumpy." After appellant put the sheets on top of the wall, he climbed over, picked up the bundle, carried it "Santa Clause style" over his shoulder, and walked off. Hunt testified the bundle appeared to be heavy because appellant struggled to pick it up after setting it down on the wall. About a week later, a detective came to her apartment and showed her a photographic lineup. She picked out appellant's photograph because he was the person she saw carrying the bundle of sheets. Hunt testified she watched appellant for approximately two minutes. Appellant did not testify during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. Applicable Law
A person commits burglary of a habitation if, without the effective consent of the owner, he enters a habitation with intent to commit theft. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). In a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence demonstrates the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury's determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. See Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The jury is the exclusive judge of the facts provided and of the weight to be given to the testimony. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979). While the reviewing court has some authority to disregard evidence that supports the verdict, it may not substitute its own determination for that of the jury. See Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 87-88 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Scott v. State, 934 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.). Discussion
Appellant argues that the evidence is factually insufficient because the only evidence linking him to the offense was the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. The State responds that identification by a single witness is factually sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction. We agree with the State. Taylor testified she was missing gray sheets from her bed and several items from her apartment. Hunt picked appellant's photograph from a photographic lineup about one week after the burglary. At trial, Hunt positively identified appellant as the person she saw carrying gray sheets that appeared to be full of items on the day of the burglary. A single witness can be sufficient to support a conviction. See Garza v. State, 82 S.W.3d 791, 794 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2002 no pet.) ; Davis v. State, 831 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd). It was the fact finder's role to weigh the credibility of witnesses and to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Having reviewed all the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude it is factually sufficient to support the conviction. See Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.