Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court Waller County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-04-16006
consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
Adrienne Deray August was convicted of burglary of a
habitation and sentenced to 20 years' confinement. In
three issues, Appellant asserts (1) the trial court erred by
denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is legally
insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) the trial
court erred by denying his motion for new trial. For the
reasons below, we reverse Appellant's conviction and
remand the case for a new trial.
was arrested and charged with burglary of a Brookshire
apartment. Before he proceeded to trial, Appellant filed a
motion to suppress eyewitness Daniel Glover's
identification of Appellant as one of the suspects involved
in the burglary. Glover observed the burglary during the
early-morning hours of January 25, 2017; he said he heard
glass breaking and watched three individuals carrying plastic
bags and other objects from a downstairs apartment to a car
parked out front. Glover later was presented with Appellant
and two other men at a show-up identification. After a
hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to
three-day trial was held in May 2018. After the close of
evidence, the jury found Appellant guilty. Appellant timely
asserts three issues on appeal:
1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying
Appellant's motion to suppress Glover's out-of-court
2. The evidence is legally insufficient to support
Appellant's conviction for burglary of a habitation.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by denying
Appellant's motion for new trial.
respect to Appellant's second issue, we conclude his
conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence.
Turning to Appellant's first issue, we conclude the trial
court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's motion
to suppress. Based on our disposition of this issue, we do
not address Appellant's third challenge with respect to
his motion for new trial.
Legally Sufficient Evidence Supports Appellant's
of a Habitation.
begin by addressing Appellant's second issue which, if
sustained, would be dispositive of his appeal. See, e.g.,
Wyatt v. State, 367 S.W.3d 337, 340 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2012, pet. dism'd). Appellant argues the
evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction
for burglary of a habitation because "the only evidence
linking appellant to this offense is the testimony of law
enforcement that the witness identified appellant on the
Standard of Review and Governing Law
legal-sufficiency challenge, we view the evidence adduced at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict and
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479,
482-483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)). A person commits
burglary of a habitation if, without the consent of the
owner, the person enters the habitation and commits or
attempts to commit theft. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
30.02(a)(3) (Vernon 2019). The Penal Code defines
"enter" as intruding with any part of the body or
any physical object connected with the body. Id. at
(b). A person ...