Opinion
No. 11-04-00163-CV
Opinion filed January 19, 2006.
On Appeal from the Juvenile Court Midland County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 5118.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., and McCALL, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court found that B.J.L. engaged in delinquent conduct and committed him to the Texas Youth Commission until he turned twenty-one. We affirm.
The State's petition for delinquency alleged seven paragraphs of delinquent conduct. The trial court found that B.J.L. engaged in burglary of a habitation as alleged in the third and fifth paragraphs of the State's petition. B.J.L. argues that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings.
The adjudication of a juvenile as a delinquent is based on the criminal standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.03(f) (Vernon Supp. 2005). An appellate court applies the same standards applicable to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases. In re L.F.L.T.B., 137 S.W.3d 856 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2004, no pet.); In the Matter of Z.L.B., 115 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); In the Matter of E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.); In the Matter of J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). To determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting guilt is so weak as to render the conviction clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the evidence supporting guilt, although adequate when taken alone, is so greatly outweighed by the overwhelming weight of contrary evidence as to render the conviction clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).
Rosa Galindo Ayala testified that someone kicked in her door and burglarized her home. Ayala stated that her bedroom was "messed up" and that her jewelry box was open. Ayala was later called to the police station where she was able to identify a ring and cell phone taken from her home.
Sandra Scurlock also testified that someone had broken into her home. Scurlock said that everything in the living room was "turned upside down." Scurlock was also called to the police station where she was able to identify a Play Station 2 game system, some games, Nike tennis shoes, and some DVDs that were taken from her home.
Officer Jesse Joe Ortiz, with the Midland Police Department, testified that he responded to a call to assist in looking for suspects in a burglary. Officer Ortiz stopped two young men who fit the description of the suspects. Officer Ortiz identified B.J.L. as being one of the young men he stopped. Officer Ortiz stated that B.J.L. was carrying a Wal-Mart bag that contained a pair of Nike tennis shoes, three DVDs, a shirt, a cell phone charger, a CD case, and other miscellaneous items. Officer Ortiz also stated that the shoes B.J.L. was wearing had an imprint on the sole that matched shoe prints left behind from a previous burglary investigation.
Detective Joe Rogers testified that he recovered stolen property from B.J.L.'s person and from B.J.L.'s house. Detective Roberts stated that Scurlock was able to identify Nike tennis shoes and DVDs recovered from B.J.L. as those taken from her residence. Ayala was also able to identify a cell phone and some jewelry taken from her residence. Detective Rogers stated that he interviewed B.J.L. the night he was detained. A tape recording of that interview was played for the trial court. During that interview, B.J.L. admitted that he and his stepbrother were involved in two burglaries. B.J.L. stated that he kicked in the door of one residence to gain access to the home. B.J.L. further admitted taking Nike tennis shoes and some DVDs and placing those items in a Wal-Mart bag.
We find that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that B.J.L. engaged in the burglary of the residences of both Scurlock and Ayala. All of B.J.L.'s points of error are overruled.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.