sIn The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00388-CR __________________
BRIAN KEITH MELONSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-40299 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Brian Keith Melonson appeals his conviction for burglary of a
building. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1). A grand jury indicted Melonson
for burglary of a building on June 15, 2022, in Jefferson County, and alleged in the
indictment that Melonson was previously convicted of two felony offenses.
Melonson pleaded not guilty, and a jury found Melonson guilty as charged in the
indictment. Melonson pleaded “true” to the enhancement allegations, and the jury
assessed punishment at five years of confinement and a fine of $2,000. Melonson
1 timely appealed. On appeal, Melonson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction.
Evidence at Trial
Testimony of Ryan Weir
Officer Ryan Weir with the Beaumont Police Department testified that on
June 15, 2022, he was dispatched to a convenience store on Highway 105 to assist
another officer in response to an alarm going off at the convenience store. According
to Officer Weir, when he arrived at the store, the store’s alarm was going off, the
store was closed, the window on the door was broken, and it appeared that someone
had entered the store without permission. Officer Weir testified that he activated his
body camera prior to walking inside the store and that no one was inside the store.
The recording from Officer Weir’s body camera was admitted into evidence and
published to the jury. Two employees that worked at the store, Mandy and Melanie,1
arrived at the scene while Officer Weir was there. Officer Weir testified that the store
had surveillance cameras, and he and the employees looked at the store’s
surveillance footage. The employees identified the perpetrator depicted in the
surveillance footage as Melonson, a former employee at the store who had the
combination to the store’s safe. Photos from the crime scene were admitted into
1 We use pseudonyms to refer to witnesses other than law enforcement and the defendant. 2 evidence and published to the jury. Officer Weir testified that one of the photographs
showed a large piece of concrete rock that Officer Weir saw the suspect on the video
throw a couple of times at the door that was broken. Officer Weir recalled that the
employees provided him with Melonson’s address, an apartment which was
approximately two blocks from the store, and Officer Weir went to the apartment to
find Melonson. According to Officer Weir, when he arrived at the apartment, the
lights were on, law enforcement knocked on the door, an occupant “peeked out the
blind[,]” law enforcement announced themselves, the lights were then turned out,
and no one ever answered the door despite law enforcement waiting several minutes.
Mandy’s Testimony
Mandy testified that on June 15, 2022, she was employed at the store that was
burglarized, and at the time of trial she had worked at that store for three years. At
trial, Mandy identified the defendant as Melonson and testified that Melonson was
“a regular customer [at the store] at first,” and then later Melonson was hired to work
at the store as an employee. According to Mandy, she and the other manager,
Melanie, trained Melonson when he was hired. Mandy testified that the store’s safe
was located underneath a cabinet by the cash register, the safe was not visible to the
general public, and the employees had the combination to the safe. Mandy recalled
that at the time the store was burglarized, the employees were herself, Melanie, and
Denise. According to Mandy, Melonson had recently been fired. Mandy testified
3 that whoever was scheduled to work in the evening “closes the store” when they
leave, which includes locking the doors, doing paperwork, putting money in the safe
by opening the safe with a four-digit code and putting the register drawer inside the
safe, locking the safe, turning the lights out, and setting the alarm before leaving.
According to Mandy, “drops” of money were typically made throughout the day into
a part of the safe only accessible by the owner. Mandy explained that the only portion
of the safe that an employee could access is that part of the safe where they keep a
blue bag with $500, another blue bag with additional extra cash, and where the
register drawer is placed at night. Mandy testified that the store closes at either 11:00
p.m. or “midnight” depending on the day of the week. According to Mandy, the store
usually had four employees, and Melonson was the only male who had been
employed there during the year and a half period before the burglary.
According to Mandy, around 2:30 a.m. on the morning of June 15, 2022, an
officer with the Beaumont Police Department called her and informed her there had
been a problem at the store. Mandy testified that she, the store manager at the time
(Melanie), and Denise (another employee) arrived at the store and the door was still
locked but the glass on the door was broken. Mandy recalled that there was a “busted
door with glass all over the floor[,]” the rock that went through the glass had hit beer
that was displayed by the door, beer was knocked down and spilled all over the floor,
4 the store was a “complete mess[,]” the safe was wide open, and the cash register
drawer had been pulled out.
Mandy testified that Melonson had worked at the store for about three months,
and she was the person who informed Melonson that he was being terminated for
“[p]oor work ethics [and] [h]e wasn’t doing the job.” She recalled that Melonson
was fired a short time before the burglary. Mandy testified that when employees
were terminated, they confiscated the keys from the employees at the time of
termination. However, according to Mandy, Melonson still had the combination to
the safe because the combination was not changed after he was fired. At the time of
trial Mandy was a manager of the store, and she agreed that it was “bad practice[]”
for the store to “not change” the code to the safe after an employee leaves. She agreed
that the store has had numerous former employees, and she assumed that the code to
the safe had never been changed.
According to Mandy, the perpetrator in the surveillance videos did not take
lottery tickets or cigarettes, did not try to get into the visible cash register, but instead
went straight to the safe. Mandy testified that the store has security cameras inside
and outside of the store, that law enforcement asked her to find the video footage,
and she located the footage and viewed it with law enforcement. Mandy explained
that when she viewed the store’s security surveillance video footage, the person in
the video that broke the glass to enter the store was not supposed to be in the store.
5 She could see on the video that the perpetrator “punch[ed] in” the code to the safe to
open it, and the perpetrator took the blue bags, and only store employees knew the
location and contents of the blue bags. Mandy identified Melonson as the perpetrator
on the video “[b]y his walk, by his pants, by his shoes because that’s what he wore
when he came to work.” Mandy said that Melonson also knew the code to the safe,
he was left-handed, and the video showed that after the perpetrator left the store, he
walked towards the direction where Melonson lived. Mandy recalled that in the
video, the perpetrator wore the same red shoes and stonewashed, ripped jeans that
Melonson used to wear to work. According to Mandy, the perpetrator took money
from the safe and the broken door had to be replaced. The video footage from the
store’s surveillance camera system was admitted into evidence and published to the
jury. Mandy testified that the perpetrator in the video did not look like Melanie or
Denise, and she told the jury that she was sure that the perpetrator in the surveillance
video was Melonson.
Testimony of Ronnie Freeman
Detective and Forensic Analyst Ronnie Freeman with the Beaumont Police
Department testified that he was assigned to the case and that Melanie, the store
manager, identified Melonson as the perpetrator in the surveillance video. Detective
Freeman testified that he called Melonson at a phone number he obtained from
employment records provided to Freeman by the store employees. According to
6 Detective Freeman, Melonson answered the phone, and when Detective Freeman
informed Melonson that he was investigating the burglary, Melonson refused to talk
to him. Detective Freeman told Melonson they would continue the investigation
without Melonson’s statement, and Melonson told Detective Freeman to “do my
thing[.]”
Detective Freeman recalled that he served a search warrant on T-Mobile,
Melonson’s cell phone provider, for information within a very narrow time frame of
the burglary as to where Melonson’s cell phone pinged. Detective Freeman testified
that during the time of the burglary, Melonson’s cell phone pinged to a tower that is
“like right across the street[]” from the burglarized store and near the apartment
where Detective Freeman knew Melonson lived. The business records provided by
T-Mobile in response to the search warrant were admitted into evidence. Detective
Freeman testified that it was approximately a nine-minute or half-a-mile walk from
the store to Melonson’s apartment.
Detective Freeman testified that photographs of a man Freeman identified as
the defendant were obtained from the Facebook account for “Brian Beezy
Melonson” and that the photographs from Facebook depicted Melonson wearing
stonewashed jeans that were torn in the same areas as the jeans worn by the
perpetrator in the surveillance videos. The photographs were admitted into evidence
and published to the jury. According to Detective Freeman, after he considered the
7 details of what his investigation had revealed—Melonson’s Facebook page,
Melonson’s phone records, information from Mandy and Melanie, the surveillance
video from the burglary, the perpetrator’s appearance, mannerisms, clothing, left-
handedness which matched Melonson, and that Melonson had recently been
terminated and he knew the code to the safe—Detective Freeman concluded that
Melonson had committed the burglary. On cross-examination, Detective Freeman
agreed that he had no other suspects, he had only focused on Melonson as a suspect,
and he never met Melonson.
Melanie’s Testimony
Melanie testified that on June 15, 2022, she was the manager at the store and
that at that time she had been the store manager for almost four years. Melanie
testified that as store manager she “hired, fired, led a shift, made schedules, did truck
orders[,]” and the only male hired in the four years she was at the store was Brian
Melonson, and the only other employee at any other store associated with the store
she managed was a white male. Melanie recalled that Melonson was fired because
he did not perform his job; when customers would come in to buy cigars, he would
tell them he had weed for sale; and he placed a bucket on the counter saying that he
was collecting money to feed the homeless.
According to Melanie, around 2:30 a.m. on June 15, 2022, the police
department called her to come to the store because it had been “broken into.” When
8 she arrived, only Beaumont Police Department personnel were on the scene and the
glass on the store’s door had been broken. Melanie testified that the store had been
closed for the night, no one had permission to be in the store at that time, and it was
apparent after talking to the store’s owner that he had not given anyone permission
to break the glass and enter his store. According to Melanie, there was $1,400 in the
safe that night and the code to the safe had stayed the same for the four years she
had worked there.
Melanie testified that she let the police videotape the footage from the store’s
surveillance system and that one of the videos admitted at trial showed a man she
recognized as Melonson at the front of the store at 2:22 in the morning. According
to Melanie, she had trained and supervised Melonson, which meant seeing him daily
as an employee, and that she saw him often as a customer before he was employed
at the store. Melanie testified she recognized him in the surveillance video “[f]rom
the way he walked, from the shoes and the pants.” Melanie testified that Melonson
would show up to work in red shoes like the ones in the video and would wear torn,
whitewashed jeans like the person in the video. Melanie recalled that Melonson was
left-handed, as was the person in the video. Melanie testified that the suspect in the
video went straight to the safe that was not visible to the public, the suspect did not
concern himself with the cash register or the change but immediately went for the
two blue bags of money, and only an employee or the owner would know the bags
9 had that much money in them. According to Melanie, when she saw the video, she
knew the person in the video was Melonson and she had no doubt in her mind that
it was him.
Melonson’s Testimony
Melonson testified in his own defense. He testified that he was a customer of
the store and worked there about a month and a half until he was fired for being late
to work. According to Melonson, Melanie—not Mandy—trained him. Melonson
testified that he committed aggravated robbery when he was seventeen years old,
and he pled guilty to the offense and served a five-year sentence. Melonson testified
that he was on parole for possession of a firearm, and his probation for being a felon
in possession of a firearm was revoked because he was accused of shooting someone
and was charged with possession of a firearm, and he served six years of
incarceration. Melonson recalled that when he was on probation, Melanie gave him
a chance and offered him the job at the store even though she knew he was on felony
parole.
Melonson testified that although he had red shoes, there was “no proof” that
he had the same shoes as the person in the video. He testified that as to the red shoes
worn by the perpetrator in the video, he had “never seen those shoes in [his] life.”
Melonson testified that everyone wears stonewashed jeans with “rips.” According to
Melonson, some of the employees’ boyfriends could have been told the code to the
10 safe. Melonson agreed that he did sell weed as testified to by Melanie, but he said
he did not commit the burglary and it was not him in the video. Melonson testified
that although the perpetrator in the video threw the rock with his left hand, the
perpetrator opened the safe with his right hand so the perpetrator could have been
left or right-handed. However, Melonson agreed that he can do a lot of things with
his right hand. Melonson testified that no one has proof that the lights were turned
off when law enforcement came to his apartment after the burglary, and that when
the detective called him, he told the detective that he would not come down to the
police station but that the detective could come to Melonson’s house and talk to him
there. According to Melonson, Mandy and Melanie concocted the story to blame
him for the burglary, and all the other witnesses at trial were telling at least partial
lies and he was telling the “whole truth[.]”
Issue on Appeal
In Melonson’s sole issue on appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction. Specifically, he argues that there is insufficient
evidence to support the jury’s finding that he is the person who committed the
offense. Melonson contends identity “was contested and was based upon
conjecture[,]” and “that [t]he characteristics used by the witnesses to identify
[Melonson] were common and not sufficiently exclusive to [Melonson] to support a
conviction.”
11 Standard of Review and Applicable Law
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder
could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We give deference to the factfinder’s responsibility to fairly
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. If the record
contains conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved such
facts in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 899 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326); Clayton v.
State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The jury as factfinder is the
sole judge of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, and it may
believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. See Febus v.
State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d
912, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), overruled on other grounds, Laster v. State, 275
S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995). The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence nor determine
the credibility of the evidence, nor does it substitute its own judgment for that of the
12 factfinder. Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 572; Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007).
“Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: ‘Circumstantial
evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and
circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.’” Clayton, 235
S.W.3d at 778 (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). Each fact need not point directly
and independently to the guilt of the defendant, as long as the cumulative force of
all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Temple v.
State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13;
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
A person commits burglary of a building “if, without the effective consent of
the owner, the person . . . enters [] a building (or any portion of a building) not then
open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault[.]” See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1). “Identity may be proven by direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence, or by reasonable inferences from the evidence.” See
Ingerson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 501, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Gardner v.
State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). The identity of the defendant
as the perpetrator of the alleged crime may be proven by inferences, and when there
is no direct evidence of the perpetrator’s identity elicited from trial witnesses, no
formalized procedure is required for the State to prove the identity of the defendant
13 as the perpetrator of the crime. Clark v. State, 47 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2001, no pet.). The question in a sufficiency review where the defendant
argues the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support the verdict is whether
the verdict the jury reached is reasonable given the combined and cumulative force
of the incriminating circumstances based on evidence before the jury in the
defendant’s trial. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 359. Even when the parties “disagree about
the logical inferences that flow from undisputed facts, ‘[w]here there are two
permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous.’” Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
(quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)).
Analysis
The jury heard Officer Weir testify that he and the employees looked at the
store’s surveillance footage, and the employees identified the perpetrator as
Melonson, a former employee at the store who had a combination to the store’s safe.
Also before the jury was Officer Weir’s testimony that when Weir arrived at
Melonson’s apartment, the lights were on, law enforcement knocked on the door, an
occupant “peeked out the blind[,]” law enforcement announced themselves, the
lights were turned out, and no one ever answered the door despite law enforcement
waiting several minutes. The jury heard Mandy testify that Melonson had been fired
from his employment at the store shortly before the burglary and had the code to the
14 safe, that the perpetrator in the surveillance footage appeared to go straight to the
safe and “punched in” the code to open it and took the blue bags that only store
employees knew the location and contents of. Mandy also stated she was sure that
Melonson is the person in the surveillance footage because the perpetrator wore
clothes that she had seen Melonson wear to work, he had a distinctive walk, he knew
the code to the safe, he was left-handed, and he left the store in the direction where
Melonson lived.
The jury heard Melanie testify that at the time of the burglary the store had
been closed, no one had permission to be in the store, and it was apparent after
talking to the store’s owner that he had not given anyone permission to break the
glass and enter his store. Before the jury was Melanie’s testimony that there was
$1,400 in the safe that night and the code to the safe had stayed the same for the four
years she had worked there. The jury heard Melanie testify that she had hired and
fired Melonson; that she had trained and supervised him; he was a regular customer
before he was employed at the store; she recognized him in the surveillance video
“[f]rom the way he walked, from the shoes and the pants[;]” Melonson would show
up to work in red shoes like the shoes worn by the man in the video and Melonson
would wear torn, whitewashed jeans like the person wore in the store’s surveillance
video. She explained that Melonson was left-handed, as was the person in the video;
the suspect in the video went straight to the safe that was not visible to the public;
15 and the suspect did not concern himself with the cash register or the change but
immediately went for the two blue bags of money; and only an employee or the
owner would know the blue bags had money in them. The jury heard both Mandy
and Melanie testify that they were sure that the perpetrator from the video
surveillance was Melonson.
The jury also heard Detective Freeman’s testimony that Mandy and Melanie
both identified Melonson as the perpetrator in the surveillance video, that when he
contacted Melonson about investigating the crime Melonson refused to talk to him,
that it was a nine minute or half-a-mile walk from the store to Melonson’s apartment,
that during the time frame of the burglary the subpoenaed cell phone records showed
Melonson was in the area of the store, and that Melonson’s Facebook account
depicted photographs of Melonson wearing jeans with rips in the same areas as the
perpetrator’s in the surveillance video. The jury heard Detective Freeman testify that
when he considered Melonson’s Facebook page; Melonson’s phone records;
information from Mandy and Melanie; the surveillance video from the burglary; and
the perpetrator’s appearance, mannerisms, clothing, left-handedness; and that the
perpetrator knew the code to the safe; Detective Freeman concluded that Melonson
had committed the burglary.
The jury viewed the surveillance footage from the store’s cameras and viewed
photographs from Melonson’s Facebook account which showed Melonson wearing
16 jeans that appear to be similar to the jeans worn by the perpetrator. The jury heard
Melonson testify that he had been fired from the store, that he had similar jeans and
shoes as the perpetrator, that he was left-handed, that the other witnesses had lied,
that Mandy and Melanie were covering up their theft of the money, and that he did
not commit the burglary.
Having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
conclude that a rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that
Melonson, without the consent of the owner, entered the store when it was not open
to the public, with the intent to commit a theft. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Temple,
390 S.W.3d at 360; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1). The jury assessed
the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses who testified at trial, and we presume
that the jury resolved all conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew
reasonable inferences from the evidence in a manner that supports the verdict. See
Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d
at 778. The jury could have reasonably concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from
the evidence presented that Melonson was the person who burglarized the store, as
alleged in the indictment. We conclude that “[t]his was not a determination so
outrageous that no rational trier of fact could agree.” Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694,
698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
17 As explained above, we overrule Melonson’s issue on appeal and affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON Justice
Submitted on July 22, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.