Charles Vernon Haynes v. State ( 2015 )

AFFIRM ; and Opinion Filed July 6, 2015.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00172-CR
CHARLES VERNON HAYNES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 006-80283-2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Brown
Appellant Charles Vernon Haynes appeals his conviction for theft of property valued at
$500 or more but less than $1500. In a single issue, appellant claims the evidence is legally
insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dewey Hargrove lives and works in Copeville. On December 4, 2012, he was driving to
work when he noticed tire tracks leading to the back of a nearby property. He called the property
owner, Jon Morris, to see if he had been there. When Morris, who lived in Garland, said he had
not, Hargrove said he would check it out. Hargrove drove around to the back, saw a Suburban,
and heard a loud noise, “like [someone was] hitting something with a hammer, hitting metal.”
He then called 911 and Morris.
Sergeant Toye of the Collin County Sheriff’s Office responded to the call and met
Hargrove who told him the property, originally a blacksmith shop, was owned by Morris. Toye
walked around to the back of the property where he saw a man and a woman in the Suburban. A
remodeled truck bed was attached to the back of the Suburban with a custom hitch. Toye
ordered the couple out of the vehicle and asked for identification. The man, identified as
appellant, claimed he had “Joseph’s” permission to be on the property. Toye found car repair
parts, including a new radiator, tires, tow bars, and speakers, as well as antique car parts in the
trailer and Suburban. Morris arrived shortly thereafter and confirmed that the trailer and all of
the items in it as well as those in appellant’s truck were his property. According to Toye, Morris
was very familiar with the items and estimated their value. Toye then arrested appellant for
theft.
During trial, Morris told the jury he is in the paint and body shop business and does
custom work and restoration of vehicles. He bought the blacksmith shop in 1974 when he lived
in Copeville. Although he later moved to Garland, Morris said he used the blacksmith shop to
store truck and car parts for his business. The shop was locked and surrounded with an eight-to-
ten foot tall fence and had “No Trespassing” signs posted. When Morris went to his shop on
December 4, he discovered his aluminum gate had been stolen and the lock broken. The doors
and windows of the shop were wide open. He said that the windows latched from the inside, so
someone had to break into the shop in order to open them. Inside, “there were truckloads and
trailer loads [of things] missing.” Morris did not know appellant and had not given him
permission to be at his shop or to take his property.
Hargrove testified he lived in Copeville and had a shop near Morris’s property. Because
Morris lived in Garland, Hargrove and several others looked after his property. On the morning
of December 4, Hargrove noticed fresh tire tracks going onto Morris’s land. He thought it was
–2–
unusual because Morris usually parked in the front. He called and verified that Morris was not
at the property, then went to see who was there. Hargrove recognized appellant because he lived
across the street from Morris’s shop. When appellant called out to him, Hargrove told him he
could not help him and that appellant knew better than to be on that property. After he was
charged with theft, appellant returned to Morris’s shop and took several items that he had
attempted to take previously, including the trailer, some Christmas decorations, and the “No
Trespassing” signs. Appellant later stopped at Hargrove’s shop and admitted he took the trailer.
According to Hargrove, appellant said “he went back in there and got it. He was charged with it
to start with, so might as well go get it and get rid of it.”
After hearing this and other evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of theft of property
valued at $500 or more but less than $1500 and assessed punishment at 365 days’ confinement in
county jail and a $4000 fine.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In his sole issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction because the State failed to prove he had the requisite intent and knowledge to
permanently deprive the complainant of the property.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all of the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether, based on that evidence and the
reasonable inferences therefrom, the factfinder was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct
evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish
guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Intent may also be inferred
from circumstantial evidence such as the acts, words, and conduct of the appellant. Guevara v.
–3–
State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The jury, as factfinder, is the sole judge of the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at
360.
A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the
owner of property. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2014). Appropriation of
property is unlawful if it is without the owner’s consent. Id. § 31.03(b)(1).
Here, the evidence shows appellant went to Morris’s shop, hooked up Morris’s trailer,
and loaded Morris’s property, including various car parts, onto the trailer and into his Suburban
without Morris’s consent. After he was arrested and charged with theft, appellant returned to
Morris’s property, took several of the items, and admitted to Hargrove that he did so. The jury,
as factfinder, could conclude from appellant’s actions on December 4, 2012, that he intended to
deprive Morris of his property. Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude the evidence
is legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for theft. We overrule his sole issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140172F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARLES VERNON HAYNES, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 6, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-14-00172-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 006-80283-2013.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of July, 2015.
–5–