Opinion
No. 10-02-00332-CR
Opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 54th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court # 2002-71-C. Affirmed.
Phil Martinez, Attorney at Law, Waco, TX, for appellant/relator. John W. Segrest, McLennan County District Attorney, Waco, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA. (Justice VANCE concurs in the judgment with a note: It is hard to understand why the majority will not provide, even in a memorandum opinion, either the basic facts necessary to understand why the Appellant brought the issues or our reasons for rejecting them. Here, the majority does not discuss a fact that the State concedes: Williams offered the officers an explanation for his possession of the stolen property. See Jackson v. State, 12 S.W.3d 836, 839-40 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd). However, because the jury resolved the question of whether that explanation is false or unreasonable against Williams, I concur. See id.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Billy Joe Williams was charged with and convicted of Burglary of a Habitation. After pleading true to three enhancement paragraphs, Williams was sentenced to 70 years in prison. Williams contends that the circumstantial evidence connecting him to the offense is legally insufficient to support his conviction. Officers followed a trail of paint from the burglarized house, where two five gallon paint buckets and tools were stolen, to a home where Williams was found. A trail of paint led officers to the back yard of Williams's home where they located a HEB shopping cart that had been painted. The paint was still wet. The officers found drops of paint around a trash can in front of Williams's home, where they found a pair of pants covered in paint. Williams admitted that those were his pants. The officers also followed another trail of paint to a vacant lot across from Williams's home and located the missing paint bucket and tools. Viewing the evidence under the appropriate standard of review, we find the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction. See Vodochodsky v. State, No. 74,129, 2004 Tex.Crim. App. LEXIS 663 (Tex.Crim.App. April 21, 2004). Williams's issue is overruled. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.