Opinion
No. 05-04-00591-CR
Opinion Filed October 26, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-53692-ST. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Eric Dwayne Taylor appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty before the court. The trial court found appellant guilty, found one enhancement paragraph true, and sentenced him to six years in prison. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm. Background On July 19, 2003, Robin Pack, who lives in Deep Ellum, opened an interior door of her residence that led to an attached garage. She had left the garage door up about eight inches so her cat could go outside. When Robin opened the door to let the cat into the garage, she heard a noise and saw a man trying to pull her bicycle under the garage door. She identified appellant in open court as the man she saw trying to take her bicycle. Robin testified the garage had flourescent lighting and she clearly saw appellant lying under her garage door with one leg and both arms inside her garage. After trying unsuccessfully to close the garage door on appellant's leg, Robin ran back into the house and yelled for her husband, then ran out the front door. She saw appellant run across the street heading toward Baylor Hospital. After yelling to some people outside the emergency room to stop appellant, she continued the chase losing sight of him when he ran behind a building. Robin described appellant to a police officer as having a "messy" Afro and wearing "a very distinctive bright yellow shirt and Army green colored pants." A few minutes later, police caught appellant and brought him back to Robin's residence. At that time, Robin identified appellant as the man she had seen in her garage trying to take her bicycle. Bobby Pack testified he ran to the garage when he heard his wife screaming at someone. He saw the bicycle laying on the floor with the garage door halfway on top of it. Bobby ran out the front door and saw a man with a bright yellow shirt running away. He ran back to the garage, got the bicycle, and chased the man on the bicycle. Bobby identified appellant as the man he chased. Bobby testified appellant ran behind a building at Baylor Hospital. He and his wife gave appellant's description to an officer and pointed to where they had seen appellant run. Five minutes later, Bobby identified appellant as the person he chased from his residence. Jason Kingston, an officer for the Baylor Health Care System police department, testified he was patrolling the parking lot when Robin Pack flagged him down and said someone had tried to steal her bicycle. Robin gave a description of the suspect and told Kingston she lost sight of the him when he ran around a building. Kingston testified he went directly to the other side of the building and he saw appellant sitting on a bench. Kingston said appellant was evasive when asked what was his business on the property. He was nervous, sweating, and appeared to be tired. Appellant also was wearing a bright yellow shirt. Kingston notified Dallas police officers that he had the suspect, and those officers picked up appellant. Kingston testified he found appellant two minutes after getting his description from Robin, and that he was "pretty much right where she lost visual contact with him." Appellant testified he had a prior conviction for delivery of a controlled substance and had been released from prison two months before the burglary. He stated that on July 19, 2003, he was walking from downtown to his brother's house in East Dallas to see if he could stay there for a few days. Appellant stopped at Baylor to get a drink of water. After getting a drink, appellant went outside to a smoking area. While appellant was smoking a cigarette, a Baylor police officer came up and said that appellant fit the description of someone who committed a burglary. Appellant testified he was not the individual that Robin saw pulling a bicycle out of her garage, and he denied he was chased by Robin or Bobby Pack. Applicable Law 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. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); 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, favoring neither party. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We must determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both supporting and against the finding, demonstrates that the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 WL 840786, *7 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr. 21, 2004). Evidence can be factually insufficient when: (1) considered by itself, the evidence supporting the verdict is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; or (2) contrary evidence exists that is strong enough the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. See id. In examining a factual sufficiency challenge, we defer to the fact finder's determination of the credibility of the evidence. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. Discussion Appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient because no evidence shows he was the person in the complainant's garage or that he was the person the complainant chased. Appellant argues he may have worn clothing similar to what the complainant described, but the complainant's identification of him was unreliable. The State responds the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction because the complainant positively identified appellant as the person she chased after she saw him trying to take the bicycle. We agree with the State. Robin identified appellant as the person who attempted to take a bicycle from her garage without consent. Both Robin and Bobby chased appellant and gave his description to officers, who apprehended appellant two minutes after getting the description. Both Robin and Bobby identified appellant on the date of the offense and in open court as the man who burglarized their garage and the man they both chased. Conversely, appellant denied he was the person who tried to take the bicycle. Appellant testified he had only stopped at Baylor Hospital to rest before walking to his brother's house. It was the fact finder's role to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Reviewing the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. See Sanders, 119 S.W.3d at 820; Zuniga, 2004 WL 840786, at *7. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.