Ernest Longoria, Iii v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2003
• Docket: 13-01-00698-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-01-698-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

---

ERNEST LONGORIA, III

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

---

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

---

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Kennedy ⁽¹⁾

Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for fifteen years and a fine of $15,000. Appellant's one "ground for review" alleges factually insufficient evidence to convict.

In judging this appeal, we will view all of the evidence without the prism of "in the light most favorable to the prosecution" and will set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We will conduct a factual sufficiency review in which we are authorized to disagree with the fact finder's determination of the facts; however, we will be appropriately deferential and not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. Id. at 133.

The testimony heard by the jury shows that after the injured parties (husband and wife) discovered their loss, they went to several pawn shops in an effort to recover some or all of their property. At the first pawn shop, they saw three males in a car in the parking lot. Finding none of their stolen property at this pawn shop, they went to another pawn shop and saw the same three males. While the injured parties were at the second pawn shop, they saw one of the three men they had seen earlier hand to the pawn shop custodian a ring that the female injured party identified as her property which had been stolen. The injured parties left the second pawn shop and called the police. They then followed the three men as they drove away and saw them apprehended by the police. One of the men apprehended was appellant. Appellant denied involvement in the burglary. A pocket knife that the male complainant identified to be his was taken from appellant's person by an officer who questioned appellant at the jail.

One of the other men who had pleaded guilty to involvement in the burglary identified appellant in the courtroom and stated that he, appellant, was involved in the burglary. Prior to trial, this witness changed his story about appellant being involved; however, at trial he once again implicated appellant in the burglary. Appellant's version of the events was that he was with the other two men when they took the stolen property to the pawn shop but that he had no part in the burglary. He explained his possession of the male complainant's knife by saying that he had bought it from one of the other two men.

In addition to the above, a State's witness, who was an employee of the pawn shop where the ring was pawned, identified appellant and said that he was in the pawn shop on the day in question and that appellant told her he was the owner of complainant's ring.

We have examined all of the evidence that the jury heard in this case. The jury's finding of guilt of the appellant is supported by the evidence. We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

NOAH KENNEDY

Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 27th day of February, 2003.

1. Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 1998).