No. 05-05-00484-CR
Opinion issued November 18, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F04-53188-TM. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
Opinion By Justice MORRIS.
In this case, a jury convicted Antonio Alberto Ortega of theft of property valued at less than $1500. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence against him is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
Dallas police officers Judy Fries and Ruben Felan were driving around the Love Field area in unmarked vehicles looking for theft suspects allegedly driving a white Mazda pickup truck. When Fries saw the suspect vehicle parked by an alley on Bombay Street, she radioed its location to other officers. Fries testified that a man and woman were in the cab of the truck. Appellant jumped from the bed of the truck and walked into the alley. He did not have anything in his hands. Five minutes later, Fries saw appellant return to the truck carrying a "long pole that had a hook on it." He got into the back of the truck with the item, and the driver drove away. Fries then went into the alley and saw a storage shed in the backyard of a house near the alley. Fries was told by other officers that the item in appellant's hands was a tree trimmer. She went to the front door of the house and spoke with the owner, Alberto Trevino. Felan, who was parked at the corner of Mohawk and Bombay, saw appellant walk from the alley carrying the tree trimmer. Felan followed the truck to a known drug house on Sheridan Street. There, the truck's driver took the trimmer from appellant and went into the drug house. When he came back outside, he did not have the trimmer. Uniformed officers arrived and detained appellant, the driver, and the woman. Afterward, Felan and Fries recovered the trimmer at the house. Alberto Trevino testified that he had seen appellant around the neighborhood but did not know him. Trevino said his backyard fence was "chest high," and anyone walking in the alley could see into his backyard. He had a storage shed that was near the back fence. He had used the tree trimmer on a Sunday, then leaned it against the outside of the shed. The next day, a police officer came to his door and asked him to check his backyard to see if anything was missing. Trevino told the officer his tree trimmer was missing, and described it as a long, orange stick with a blade on the end and an orange rope. Later that day, officers returned with a trimmer Trevino identified as his. Discussion
Appellant argues in two issues that the evidence against him is legally and factually insufficient because there was no evidence the trimmer seen in his possession was Trevino's trimmer or that the trimmer recovered from the drug house was the same trimmer seen in appellant's possession. In reviewing a challenge to 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. Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Here, Fries testified that she saw appellant walk into the alley with nothing in his hands and return five minutes later carrying a tree trimmer. At that time, Trevino confirmed his trimmer was missing. Felan, who also saw appellant with a tree trimmer, followed appellant to a known drug house. Afterward, the trimmer was recovered from the drug house, and Trevino identified the tree trimmer as his. Having reviewed all of the evidence under the proper standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's conviction. We resolve appellant's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.