Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00407-CR
Matthew Aaron Powell, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge David G. Hilburn, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 22-01226-CRF-361
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew Aaron Powell was found guilty by a jury of the second-degree
felony offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court assessed his
punishment at ten years in the penitentiary and a $1,000 fine. The trial court
further suspended imposition of the sentence and placed the defendant on
community supervision for six years. Powell brings this appeal in which he
contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he “committed theft or intended to commit theft” of property, and (2) the only crime proven was the
lesser included offense of criminal trespass. We will affirm.
A. Background
In March 2021, Katherine Plaue and her roommate, Lauren Mitchell,
were attending classes at Texas A&M when Plaue checked the security
cameras she had installed in their condominium. Plaue had placed two
cameras in their condominium, one in the living room, and one in her bedroom,
to be able to check on her dog while she was away. On March 18, 2021, around
9:20 in the morning, Plaue checked the living room camera and saw Powell in
her dining room coming from a set of French doors in the rear of the
condominium. Powell appeared to be heading toward the stairs while grabbing
his genitals. Plaue called 9-1-1, and, while on the phone she checked her
bedroom camera where she saw Powell going through her clothes in her packed
travel bag. Plaue saw him pushing items aside while digging around her bag
before he selected a pair of her underwear. Powell then held up the pair of
underwear, stared at them, and then balled them up in his left hand. Plaue
then observed Powell move toward her dresser, while masturbating, and
intently stare at a collection of photos of herself and her husband and her
family. Plaue then saw Powell leave her room with her underwear in his hand
and go to Mitchell’s room, where there was no camera. Plaue then used the
Powell v. State Page 2 downstairs camera’s speaker to yell at Powell to get out of the house and inform
him that she was calling 9-1-1. Powell then ran out of Mitchell’s room, down
the stairs, and out of the condominium.
In March 2024, Powell was indicted for burglary of a habitation. See TEX.
PEN. CODE ANN. § 30.02. The case was reindicted in June 2024, adding
Mitchell as an additional complainant. At trial, the defendant pled not guilty
to the burglary of a habitation charge.
B. Issue One
On appeal, Powell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his burglary of a habitation conviction. Powell argues that the State failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “committed theft or intended to
commit theft.”
1. Authority
The Court of Criminal Appeals has defined our standard of review of
a sufficiency issue as follows:
When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson,
Powell v. State Page 3 443 U.S. at 319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
2. Analysis
The issue raised by Powell is whether the evidence is sufficient to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Powell entered the habitation and “committed
theft or intended to commit theft” of property once he entered. See TEX. PEN.
CODE ANN. § 30.02.
To prove the offense of burglary of a habitation as charged in the
indictment, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Powell v. State Page 4 Powell (1) intentionally and knowingly entered his entire body into a
habitation, without the effective consent of Katherine Plaue or Lauren
Mitchell, and (2) attempted to commit or committed theft of property, namely,
one item of underwear or one item of clothing owned by Katherine Plaue.
Powell argues that during trial, the State’s repeated theory was that
Powell entered Plaue’s and Mitchell’s condominium for purposes of sexual
gratification. Powell points to the State’s opening statement to support his
contention when the State said, “It’s evident why he was there. He makes that
clear by having his hand on his penis the entire time. That’s why he was
there.” Powell contends that because he was “never in a hurry” to get out of
the condominium that theft was not the motive.
Powell contends that there is insufficient evidence of an actual or
attempted theft because Plaue never identified what was missing, the color or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00407-CR
Matthew Aaron Powell, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge David G. Hilburn, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 22-01226-CRF-361
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew Aaron Powell was found guilty by a jury of the second-degree
felony offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court assessed his
punishment at ten years in the penitentiary and a $1,000 fine. The trial court
further suspended imposition of the sentence and placed the defendant on
community supervision for six years. Powell brings this appeal in which he
contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he “committed theft or intended to commit theft” of property, and (2) the only crime proven was the
lesser included offense of criminal trespass. We will affirm.
A. Background
In March 2021, Katherine Plaue and her roommate, Lauren Mitchell,
were attending classes at Texas A&M when Plaue checked the security
cameras she had installed in their condominium. Plaue had placed two
cameras in their condominium, one in the living room, and one in her bedroom,
to be able to check on her dog while she was away. On March 18, 2021, around
9:20 in the morning, Plaue checked the living room camera and saw Powell in
her dining room coming from a set of French doors in the rear of the
condominium. Powell appeared to be heading toward the stairs while grabbing
his genitals. Plaue called 9-1-1, and, while on the phone she checked her
bedroom camera where she saw Powell going through her clothes in her packed
travel bag. Plaue saw him pushing items aside while digging around her bag
before he selected a pair of her underwear. Powell then held up the pair of
underwear, stared at them, and then balled them up in his left hand. Plaue
then observed Powell move toward her dresser, while masturbating, and
intently stare at a collection of photos of herself and her husband and her
family. Plaue then saw Powell leave her room with her underwear in his hand
and go to Mitchell’s room, where there was no camera. Plaue then used the
Powell v. State Page 2 downstairs camera’s speaker to yell at Powell to get out of the house and inform
him that she was calling 9-1-1. Powell then ran out of Mitchell’s room, down
the stairs, and out of the condominium.
In March 2024, Powell was indicted for burglary of a habitation. See TEX.
PEN. CODE ANN. § 30.02. The case was reindicted in June 2024, adding
Mitchell as an additional complainant. At trial, the defendant pled not guilty
to the burglary of a habitation charge.
B. Issue One
On appeal, Powell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his burglary of a habitation conviction. Powell argues that the State failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “committed theft or intended to
commit theft.”
1. Authority
The Court of Criminal Appeals has defined our standard of review of
a sufficiency issue as follows:
When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson,
Powell v. State Page 3 443 U.S. at 319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer” strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. Although juries may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
2. Analysis
The issue raised by Powell is whether the evidence is sufficient to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Powell entered the habitation and “committed
theft or intended to commit theft” of property once he entered. See TEX. PEN.
CODE ANN. § 30.02.
To prove the offense of burglary of a habitation as charged in the
indictment, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Powell v. State Page 4 Powell (1) intentionally and knowingly entered his entire body into a
habitation, without the effective consent of Katherine Plaue or Lauren
Mitchell, and (2) attempted to commit or committed theft of property, namely,
one item of underwear or one item of clothing owned by Katherine Plaue.
Powell argues that during trial, the State’s repeated theory was that
Powell entered Plaue’s and Mitchell’s condominium for purposes of sexual
gratification. Powell points to the State’s opening statement to support his
contention when the State said, “It’s evident why he was there. He makes that
clear by having his hand on his penis the entire time. That’s why he was
there.” Powell contends that because he was “never in a hurry” to get out of
the condominium that theft was not the motive.
Powell contends that there is insufficient evidence of an actual or
attempted theft because Plaue never identified what was missing, the color or
size of the underwear, that a video showed the panties in Powell’s hand and a
subsequent video did not, that the detectives did not search the entire
condominium looking for the underwear, and that no panties were found in the
search of Powell’s home.
The evidence presented during the trial included the testimony of Plaue,
who described what she observed Powell doing on the security cameras in the
condominium. As stated above, Powell digging through her packed travel bag
Powell v. State Page 5 pushing items aside rather than grabbing the first item he saw, removing a
pair of her underwear and holding them up to eye level and staring at them,
crumpling them up in his left hand, and leaving her room with them. In
addition to Plaue’s observations, she confirmed she never consented to Powell
entering her condominium or to him taking her underwear. Plaue also testified
that she never saw the pair of panties again, even after looking for them, and
that they were never found in the condominium during the additional three
years she lived there. Plaue’s roommate, Mitchell, confirmed she never found
Plaue’s underwear in her own bedroom nor did Mitchell ever find any
underwear of any kind in the condominium after the incident. Mitchell added
that she keeps a compartmentalized underwear drawer and folds items a
certain way, and she would have noticed an unfamiliar or misplaced pair of
underwear in her dresser.
The jury is allowed to draw reasonable inferences. Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319. We will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of
the factfinder. Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750. The jury could have drawn a
reasonable inference that Powell left with the underwear, even though a search
of Powell’s house hours later did not result in recovery of the underwear.
Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a
rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense
Powell v. State Page 6 charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore overrule Powell’s first issue.
Having done so, we need not address Powell’s second issue.
C. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do not publish CR25
Powell v. State Page 7