Handy Taylor, Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: February 14, 2014
• Docket: A13A1705
• Status: Published

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER, and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

February 14, 2014

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A1705. TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

Following a jury trial Handy Taylor, Jr. was convicted of burglary and

sentenced to twenty years, with ten to serve. He appeals from the denial of his motion

for new trial and contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.

Upon our review, we affirm.

“On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the

light most favorable to support the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a

presumption of innocence.”(Citation and punctuation omitted). Schneider v. State,

312 Ga. App. 504 (718 SE2d 833) (2011).

So viewed, the evidence shows that at approximately 1 a.m. on April 6, 2008,

several officers with the Macon Police Department responded to an alarm from a Pier

1 store and while there were notified about another suspected burglary at Butler Toyota which was located across the street. The security guard at Butler Toyota told

officers that while he was patrolling the dealership, he observed a man climbing out

of a building on the lot. He confronted the man and told him to stop, but the man ran

away. The security guard called police as he was confronting the man. He testified

that when the man ran away, he saw him hit the window of the Pier 1 store and

continue running behind the store. He described the man as a short “[w]ith white hair

and a white beard” and was about his same height of 5’2”. One of the officers

recognized the suspect from the description and identified him as Taylor. He testified

that when the suspect was described as “unusually short with bright white hair and

a bright white beard . . . I thought, that’s Handy Taylor.” Taylor was picked up at his

residence approximately an hour after the incident and driven back to Butler Toyota

where the security guard positively identified him as the man he saw crawling out of

the window.

On appeal, Taylor contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he

had the intent to commit a felony or theft inside the building he was seen leaving. He

maintains that there was no evidence presented that there was anything of value

contained in the building and that there must be some testimony regarding valuable

2 items being contained in the building to establish the necessary element of intent to

sustain a conviction for burglary.

Burglary is committed “when, without authority and with the intent to commit

a felony or theft therein, [a person] enters or remains within the dwelling house of

another or any building . . . or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling

of another or enters or remains within any other building . . . or any room or any part

thereof.” OCGA § 16-7-1 (a) (2008).1

Whether the defendant entertained an intent to commit a theft after entering is a matter for the jury to say, under the facts and circumstances proved. As a general rule the state must, of necessity, rely on circumstantial evidence in proving intent. And the fact that the defendant may have failed in accomplishing his apparent purpose does not render a finding of burglary improper.

Nelson v. State, 277 Ga. App. 92, 95 (1) (a) (625 SE2d 465) (2005). It is true as

Taylor maintains that an inference of intent to steal may be raised “where evidence

shows an unlawful entry into a building where valuable goods are stored inside and

no other motive is apparent.” Tate v. State, 253 Ga. App. 723, 724 (3) (560 SE2d 303)

1 The statute was significantly amended in 2012, however, “[a]ny offense occurring before July 1, 2012, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense.” Ga. L. 2012, Act 709, § 3-1.

3 (2002). However, intent may be inferred from other evidence as well. Adams v. State,

284 Ga. App. 534, 535 (1) (644 SE2d 426) (2007). “Intent may be found by the jury

upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive and all other

circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is being prosecuted.”

(Footnote omitted.) Palmer v. State, 243 Ga. App. 656, 657 (533 SE2d 802) (2000).

In Adams, even though there was no evidence that any items were taken or that

valuable goods were stored on the premises, we held that “the jury could infer an

intent to steal based on the evidence of an unlawful entry into a building housing an

operating business.” (Footnote omitted.) Adams, 284 Ga. App. at 535-536 (1).

Likewise, although there was no evidence presented in this case that valuable items

were located in the building, the jury could infer intent from evidence that the

building was located on the lot of an “operating business” which would customarily

contain items of value, that Taylor crawled out of the window during a time when the

business was closed, and that he ran when he was confronted by the security guard.

See Harris v. State, 322 Ga. App. 122, 124-125 (4) (744 SE2d 111) (2013) (although

nothing taken from school gymnasium, intent to steal could be inferred because “it

is well known that buildings contain valuable materials such as copper wire and pipes

and that these materials are often stolen.”)

4 Thus, the evidence was sufficient to prove intent, and a rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed. Miller and Ray, JJ., concur.