HENRY LEE WATKINS,FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-00959-CR
HENRY LEE WATKINS,FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v. OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES HOWELL, LAGARDE AND WHITTINGTON
OPINION PER CURIAM
APRIL 18, 1989
        Henry Lee Watkins was convicted of the offense of burglary of a building. Punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at ten years' confinement. Appellant raises one point of error in which he claims that the evidence is insufficient to show that he entered the building with the intent to commit theft. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        Robert Harpool, the complainant, testified that on April 1, 1988, he was a part owner of a lawn and garden supply business that kept a warehouse at 2402 Atlanta Street in Dallas. On that date, he was called by police, and based on the call, went to the warehouse. Upon arriving, he learned that the building where he kept seed and fertilizer had been burglarized. He had given no one permission to be in the building after it closed for the day. He also said that fertilizer, seed and insecticide were not stacked near the doors of the warehouse in the normal course of business.
        John Weiss, a Dallas Police officer, said that on April 1, 1988, he went to the warehouse at 2402 Atlanta to investigate a report of a burglary in progress. He saw a door slightly ajar, and two pairs of hands and feet behind it. His partner told the two individuals to come out; they slammed the door shut. The police then entered the warehouse to search for the parties.
        During their search, the police noticed the smell of gas. Upon investigating, they learned that a gas water heater had been knocked over. It appeared that someone had been pulling on the copper pipe on the water heater. After searching the building for approximately ninety minutes, he found appellant in the basement of the building. At the time he was found, appellant was crouched behind a pillar.
        After appellant had been taken into custody, the police returned to the door at which they had first seen the people inside the warehouse. They found bags of fertilizer, plant food, and insecticide near the door, and a shopping cart outside the door. No other merchandise was located near the door. On cross-examination, Officer Weiss said that the door at which he had first seen people inside the building had fresh pry marks around the frame. In addition, at the time he was found, appellant was covered with fertilizer, seed, and dust; however, the basement contained none of those items.
        Appellant then testified on his own behalf. He said that he was living on the streets at the time of his arrest. On several occasions, he stayed in the warehouse at 2402 Atlanta. When he was in the building, he would sleep on bags of fertilizer. On April 1, 1988, he went in the warehouse with a person with whom he had bought drugs. He and the person stacked some bags near the door and began to smoke "crack". At this point, the police arrived. Appellant said that he put the drugs back in his pocket; he then attempted to hide. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had been convicted previously of burglary of a habitation.
        In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court's inquiry is limited to determining whether, examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In circumstantial evidence cases, the standard articulated above is met if the evidence leaves no reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Carlsen v. State, 654 S.W.2d at 449.
        In the present cause, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he entered the building with the requisite intent to commit theft. The record reflects that fresh pry marks were found around the door at which appellant said he had entered; however, appellant denied forcibly entering the warehouse. Bags of fertilizer, seed, and bottles of insecticide had been moved next to the door. Compare White v. State, 630 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex. App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no pet.). Copper piping had been pried from a hot water heater in the building. Finally, appellant attempted to hide when police began to search the building.
        Although appellant attempted to show that he entered the building only to smoke "crack", we find that his explanation is not plausible. Appellant claimed that he did not have to use force to enter the warehouse; however, Officer Weiss testified that there were fresh pry marks around the door. He also claimed that he piled merchandise next to the door so that he could sit comfortably; however, bottles of insecticide were included in the merchandise. In addition, copper piping was dislodged from the water heater in the warehouse. In short, appellant's testimony as to his intent is rebutted by the evidence presented by the State.
        Accordingly, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
        The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
                                                  PER CURIAM
 
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
 
88-00959.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[880959F]