Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Buddy Stevens, Angleton, Jerry Jones, for appellant.
David P. Bosserman, Angleton, for the State of Texas.
Panel consists of Chief Justice FROST and Justices BOYCE and JAMISON.
KEM THOMPSON FROST, Chief Justice.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for burglary of a motor vehicle, with two prior convictions for the same offense. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary of a motor vehicle, with two prior convictions for the same offense. Appellant pleaded " not guilty."
At trial, the complainant testified that she was traveling in her vehicle with her dog and stopped at a local dog park to walk the pet. She locked her purse in her vehicle; the purse was on the floor of the front passenger side of the vehicle. When she returned to her vehicle forty-five minutes later, she saw that the driver-side window in her vehicle had been broken, and her purse and its contents were missing. The complainant contacted her credit-card issuers to cancel her credit cards and learned that one of her credit cards already had been used at a nearby gas station. The complainant filed a report with the law-enforcement officers who arrived on the scene to investigate.
A friend of the complainant cleaned the glass from the vehicle after the incident and discovered inside the vehicle a small piece of glass from the broken window that had a red stain on it. During the clean up, a small drop of blood also was found on the outside running board of the complainant's vehicle. The piece of glass was collected with tweezers, sealed in a plastic bag, and delivered to the police department. Laboratory analysis of the red stain taken from the glass revealed that the DNA profile of the stain was consistent with appellant's DNA, as recorded in a system referred to as " CODIS" that is affiliated with the Texas Department of Public Safety. With this information, officers obtained a search warrant. They then collected appellant's DNA with a buccal swab and submitted it for forensic testing.
A forensic DNA analyst testified that the red stain on the glass— blood— came from a single person. The record reflects that the DNA in the blood specimen on the broken glass was consistent with appellant's DNA profile, as taken from the buccal swab. Appellant's two prior convictions for burglary of a motor vehicle were introduced into evidence through the testimony of a latent fingerprint examiner, who verified that appellant's fingerprints matched the ones found in judgments for the prior convictions.
The jury found appellant guilty as charged. Appellant pleaded " true" to two enhancement allegations of the indictment, and the jury assessed his punishment at fifteen years' confinement and imposed a fine. The trial court denied appellant's motion for new trial.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE