Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY, NO. 83, 392,
HONORABLE REBECCA DEPEW, JUDGE PRESIDING
Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland
OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE
juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct
based upon his commission of burglary and possession of a
prohibited weapon. L.R. challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the delinquency finding that he committed
burglary. For the following reasons, we will affirm the
judgment of the juvenile court.
Lopez testified that on October 16, 2015, she left her home
around 11:00 a.m. and returned between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. to
find that her home had been burglarized. The back door had
been forced open, and several items had been stolen. She
immediately reported the burglary to the police. She also
notified her landlord, William Woods, who lived next door to
her and her husband, Gilbert Lopez.
testified that he had previously affixed a hidden camera to a
dumpster located in an alley directly behind the Lopezes'
home. He described it as a motion-activated "deer
camera" that did not record video but that, when
triggered by motion, would take three successive photographs.
Woods retrieved photographs taken during the timeframe of the
burglary, which were introduced at trial. The only
photographs taken during that timeframe were time-stamped
11:50 a.m. and depicted three young men in the alley. Mr.
Lopez testified that he showed the photographs to neighbors,
who identified two of the individuals as L.R. and his
brother, A.R. Police interviewed L.R.'s mother, who
confirmed L.R.'s and A.R.'s identities in the
photographs, A.R. and the third individual (who was never
identified) were visibly carrying items that matched the
description of those stolen from the Lopezes' home. L.R.
was carrying an article of clothing in a manner that an
investigating officer testified was consistent with
concealing and transporting small items. Mr. Lopez testified
that, later that day, he discovered various items that had
been stolen from his home in a dumpster behind the residence
in which L.R. and A.R. lived, which was approximately two
blocks from the Lopez residence. Those items included wallets
and identification belonging to Mr. Lopez, and photographs of
those items in the dumpster were admitted into evidence.
counts, L.R. was charged by petition with engaging in
delinquent conduct by committing the offenses of burglary of
a habitation and possession of a prohibited
weapon. L.R. and his counsel waived a jury trial.
L.R. entered a plea of true to the prohibited-weapon
allegation and a plea of not true to the burglary allegation.
At the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, the juvenile
court found both counts true and placed L.R. on two
years' probation. L.R. appealed.
issue, L.R. contends that the evidence is insufficient to
support the adjudication for delinquent conduct based on the
commission of the offense of burglary.
Standard of Review
review adjudications of delinquency in juvenile cases by
applying the same standards applicable to
evidence-sufficiency challenges in criminal cases.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 54.03(f); In re
M.C.L., 110 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Tex. App.-Austin 2003, no
pet.). We view all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational
fact finder could have found the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatley v. State, 445
S.W.3d 159, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The fact finder is
the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness
testimony. Id. We presume that the fact finder
resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict.
Id. Circumstantial evidence is as probative as
direct evidence in establishing the guilt of the actor and
can be sufficient to establish guilt. Carrizales v.
State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
The evidence supports the adjudication of ...