Antonio Obregon Limon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00329-CR
Antonio Obregon LIMON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-CR-6155
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

 

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: March 12, 2008

 

AFFIRMED

Antonio Obregon Limon was charged with murdering his father-in-law while committing the offense of burglary of a habitation. At a trial by jury, Limon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Limon challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Background

Limon's wife, Dora, separated from Limon and moved into her parents' house on May 1, 2005 with the couple's two sons, A.L., age twelve, and J.L., age seven. Dora's father, Rogelio Barrera, helped Dora hire an attorney, and she filed for divorce on May 6, 2005. Although Dora requested a temporary restraining order against Limon as part of the divorce petition, Dora did allow Limon to visit his sons during their separation. The couple exchanged the children at an HEB parking lot.

On the day of Rogelio's death, May 16, 2005, Limon had become extremely distraught. He arrived late to work; left early because he could not focus; persistently called Dora, Rogelio, and A.L.; and finally took a knife from his house and drove to the Barrera residence. Once he arrived, he broke the glass back door with a hammer, entered the house, walked past his mother-in-law, Narcedalia Barrera, and Dora, and stabbed Rogelio thirteen times as Narcedalia and Dora tried to stop him. Narcedalia, Dora, A.L., and J.L. witnessed the assault and ran out of the house to get help. After stabbing Rogelio, Limon sat down at the kitchen table and waited for the police to arrive. When asked by the police who he was and what he was doing there, Limon responded, "he's over there," and "I did it." Rogelio was pronounced dead at the scene.

Legal Insufficiency

In his first and third points of review, Limon contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's findings that he intentionally caused Rogelio's death and that he committed burglary of a habitation. We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The standard of review is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. Kutzner v. State, 994 S.W.2d 180, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Limon was charged with capital murder for intentionally causing the death of Rogelio Barrera with a knife, while in the course of committing or attempting to commit a burglary. Limon argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to prove: (1) he entered the Barrera residence without effective consent of the owners, and (2) he had intent to murder Rogelio. Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have found the essential elements of capital murder. Limon testified that he was frustrated because he could not talk to Dora or be with his boys. Rogelio had given Dora and the boys a place to live and had hired Dora's divorce attorney. Limon took a knife from his house and drove to the Barrera residence. Narcedalia, Dora, A.L., and J.L. testified that they were going about their daily activities when they heard the loud crash of breaking glass as Limon entered the house through the smashed back door. A reasonable jury could have believed that Limon entered the house through the back door by breaking the glass because he did not have consent. The four eyewitnesses testified that they saw Limon stab Rogelio repeatedly even though they were all screaming at Limon to stop. Testimony established Limon stabbed Rogelio thirteen times in the chest, and Rogelio died at the scene. A reasonable jury could have believed Limon stabbed Rogelio in the chest thirteen times because he intended to cause Rogelio's death. The evidence is legally sufficient to support Limon's conviction for capital murder. Limon's first and third points of review are overruled.

 

Factual Insufficiency

In his second and fourth points of review, Limon contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction. We review the factual sufficiency of the evidence by considering all of the evidence in a neutral light and only reversing if: (1) the evidence is so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, or (2) the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). The appellate court compares the evidence which tends to prove the disputed fact to the evidence which tends to disprove that fact. Cunningham v. State, 982 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd) (citing Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Although we analyze all of the evidence presented at trial, the trier of fact is the sole judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight given to their testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We may not substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 12.

Limon claims the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that Limon committed a burglary. Limon testified that he went to the Barrera's residence to see his sons. He testified that he tried to gain entry to the house by first knocking on the front door and pounding on the glass back door. He testified he had never been denied access to the Barrera residence and felt welcome there; although, he had not visited the residence since the separation. Limon testified that he "ha[d] no idea if they heard [the knock] or not, but they didn't want to take [my phone] call, so I don't know if they heard or not." Limon testified that when he parked his truck at the far edge of the property, it was not to evade detection, although he could not explain why he had not parked in the driveway or in front of the house. He admitted he did not ring the doorbell but instead pounded a couple of times on the glass back door, then picked up a hammer and broke the glass. Evidence established the glass was hit with such force that glass shards were found across the kitchen into the living room. Limon could not explain why he carried a knife to visit his sons, or why, when Limon entered, he did not stop and talk to Narcedalia or Dora about his sons. Narcedalia and Dora testified that there was an "order" against Limon to keep him away from the family; however, the State produced only a May 1, 2005 police report where Dora complained that Limon had assaulted her on April 27, 2005.

Limon argues that because there was no protective order, temporary restraining order, criminal trespass warning, or verbal request that Limon stay away from the Barrera residence, he had the effective consent of the "owners" to enter the habitation. However, the offense of burglary does not require the State to prove any of these circumstances. The evidence established that the Barreras, specifically Rogelio, did not want to talk to Limon, and Limon broke through a glass door to gain access to Rogelio. The evidence is not so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. See Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 414-15. Furthermore, given Limon's own admission that he broke through the glass door with a hammer, the jury's verdict is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that Limon committed a burglary. See id. at 415.

Limon contends he did not intend to hurt anyone and, therefore, the evidence of his intent to cause Rogelio's death is factually insufficient. Limon testified he was only looking for his sons and had no intention of hurting anyone when he drove to the Barrera residence. However, after Limon entered the residence, he ignored Narcedalia and Dora's entreaties and walked past them directly to Rogelio. He did not ask where the boys were or explain that he was there to see his sons. Limon testified that he did not know why he took the knife with him and knew it was a mistake to do so. Limon also testified that there was a scuffle, but Narcedalia, Dora, A.L., and J.L. testified that he immediately began stabbing Rogelio. Evidence established that Limon stabbed Rogelio thirteen times with such force that the knife was bent. After the attack, Limon did not try to help Rogelio, but instead walked to the kitchen table and sat down. Limon's response to the police was unemotional when he said "he's over there," and "I did it."

The indication of Limon's intent to harm Rogelio is evidenced by Limon taking a knife to Rogelio's house, walking past Narcedalia and Dora to get to Rogelio, stabbing Rogelio thirteen times with great force, continuing to stab Rogelio after he fell to the ground, and failing to help Rogelio after the attack. See Hemphill v. State, 505 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). The evidence is not so weak as to make the verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and Limon's evidence is not so strong as to preponderate against the great weight of the evidence. See Watson, 204 S.W.3d at 414-15. After a neutral review of the record, we hold the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial jury's verdict of guilt for the capital murder of Rogelio Barrera.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH