Opinion
No. 05-03-01804-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 DO NOT PUBLISH.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. F03-51851-UN.
Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices, O'NEILL and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Samuel Tyrone Moore was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Punishment, enhanced by two prior state jail felony convictions, was assessed at ten years' confinement. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. On May 23, 2003, Rudy Castillo's truck was stolen from a mechanic's shop. Castillo had left the vehicle sitting outside running with the keys in the ignition. He testified that he did not see who took his vehicle. Within minutes of receiving the stolen vehicle report, Dallas police officer Sylvia Valencia spotted the vehicle and began to pursue it. Valencia testified that she saw a heavy-set black male in the driver's seat. She saw no one else in the vehicle. The vehicle stopped at an apartment complex, and the driver fled. Valencia did not see the driver flee; however, when she arrived on the scene, a bystander pointed toward a certain direction and gave a description of the person who had abandoned the vehicle. Another police officer caught appellant in a ditch that was located in the same direction as the bystander had pointed. Appellant matched the description given by the bystander, and Castillo's cell phone was found in appellant's pocket. Castillo had left the phone in his truck. While being searched, appellant stated that "Big Baby" had been driving the truck. Valencia testified that only seven minutes elapsed between the time Castillo called the police and appellant was apprehended. In his two points of error, appellant argues the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to show he was the individual driving Castillo's vehicle. The State responds that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In a factual sufficiency review, we determine whether, considering all of the evidence in a neutral light, the evidence supporting the verdict is too weak to support the finding of guilt or whether the contrary evidence is strong enough to defeat the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The trier of fact has the responsibility to weigh evidence, drawing reasonable inferences from the facts and resolving conflicts in the evidence. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Deference is given to the jury verdict, as well as to determinations involving credibility and demeanor of witnesses. Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 481. To obtain a conviction, the State had to show appellant intentionally or knowingly operated Castillo's motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 2003). Appellant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to identify him as the driver of the stolen vehicle because Castillo did not see appellant take the vehicle and Valencia could not positively identify appellant as the driver. Valencia testified, however, that there was only one person in the vehicle. The driver had bailed out, and appellant was found hiding in a ditch nearby. Appellant matched the description given by a bystander who had seen the driver flee from the vehicle. At the time he was arrested, appellant had Castillo's cell phone in his pocket; the cell phone was in the truck at the time it was stolen. Although appellant told the police "Big Baby" was driving the truck, the fact finder was free to disbelieve that statement. Viewing all of the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. We overrule appellant's two points of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.