SAMMY RAY WILLIAMS, FROM A DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-88-00992-CR
SAMMY RAY WILLIAMS,                                 FROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
        APPELLANT,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 
        APPELLEE. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
 
BEFORE JUSTICES WHITHAM, BAKER AND OVARD
OPINION PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
        In one point of error, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of burglary of a building. The State notes that the judgment recites that appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation when appellant was indicted for burglary of a building and was found guilty as charged in the indictment. The State requests reformation of the trial court's judgment to reflect the correct offense. We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed.
        Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient because there is no corroboration of his extra-judicial confession. Appellant is correct that his confession alone will not support the conviction; the confession must be corroborated by evidence that a crime has been committed. Adrian v. State, 587 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
        The written voluntary statement reads as follows:
    This morning i [sic] ripped the wood from the bottom of the house and went under the house and stole coper [sic] pipes. To support my drug Habbit [sic], at Scobbies [sic] Foods. I need to get in Jail to get off these durg [sic] because i [sic] am beginning to think of hurting somebody to get drugs.
Appellant wrote this statement after turning himself in to the police on April 27, 1988. He told Officer Sanders that he had committed a burglary and wished to go to the penitentiary so he could kick his $300 per day cocaine habit. He said he had stolen some copper piping out of a vacant house. Officer Sanders found out where the house was located and discovered that the owner was Mike Scobee. He contacted Scobee and asked him to check the allegedly-burgled house. When Scobee told him that the skirting around the bottom of the house had been ripped away and that some copper piping was missing, Officer Sanders placed appellant under arrest.
        Mike Scobee testified that he is the owner of Scobee Foods and owns a vacant house directly across the street from his primary plant. He used the house to store paper products used in his business. The house was not open to the public and was, in fact, kept locked and boarded up. Scobee confirmed that he had been contacted by Officer Sanders and that when he inspected his house, he found the skirting pulled away and copper tubing missing.
        On cross-examination, Scobee testified that it had been three or four weeks since he had been at the rear of the house so he could not say whether the hole was there prior to April 27. He testified further that he had never checked the house to determine whether the plumbing fixtures were in place, thus he could not testify of his personal knowledge that there ever had been copper piping under the house. He based his conclusion that something was missing from the fact that there was copper piping running down under the house but there was nothing running along the underside of the house.
        Appellant testified that he did not rip the wood from under the house or take the copper tubing as he had stated in his confession. The cocaine was beginning to get to him that day, making his nose bleed. He was afraid that if he did not do something to get arrested and jailed for a few weeks, he would die from the drugs. He bought some alcohol and called the police to ask to be arrested for public intoxication. They told him they could not arrest him, and again told him they would not arrest him when he called to say he had a drug problem and needed to get arrested.
        Appellant testified further that he began to look for something minor to get arrested for. He noticed a house with some winos nearby. A piece of board had been torn from the house on one side, so he decided to tell the police that he had done it. He asked the winos who owned the house, and they told him it belonged to Scobee Food Store. He then turned himself in to the police and told Officer Sanders that he had torn the wood off the house and stolen copper pipe. He wanted to be arrested so that he could go to jail to be cured of his drug problem but did not expect a burglary charge and a possible twenty-five year sentence.
        Proof of the corpus delicti -- the fact that the crime charged has been committed by someone -- may not be made by an extrajudicial confession alone, but proof of the corpus delicti need not be made independent of an extrajudicial confession. Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d 325, 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). If there is some evidence corroborating the confession, the confession may be used to aid in the establishment of the corpus delicti. Dunn, 721 S.W.2d at 343-34. The corroborating evidence need not be conclusive in its character; when a confession is made, and the circumstances therein related correspond in some points with those proven to have existed, then the evidence is sufficient. Fruechte v. State, 166 Tex. Crim. 496, 316 S.W.2d 418, 419 (1958). Moreover, the corroborating evidence can be circumstantial. Penry v. State, 691 S.W.2d 636, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1073 (1986).
        In this case, the State showed that at some time the skirting around Scobee's house had been removed. Appellant's own in-court testimony confirmed this fact. Further, Scobee testified that there was copper piping coming from a bathroom to some point under the house but that the piping stopped.
        Although Scobee was unable to state that there was any copper tubing underneath the house on the date alleged for the offense, or that the metal skirting had been pulled away on that date, we conclude that the circumstances proven were sufficient to show that a crime had been committed. Appellant's extrajudicial confession was sufficiently corroborated by evidence that a crime had been committed. We overrule appellant's point of error.
        The State points out that the judgment recites that appellant was found guilty of burglary of a habitation when the indictment and the verdict provide that he was found guilty of burglary of a building. The judgment may be reformed to conform the offense listed to the indictment and the verdict. See Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We reform the judgment and sentence to reflect appellant's conviction for burglary of a building rather than burglary of a habitation.
        We affirm the judgment as reformed.
                                                          PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
 
880992.U05
 
 
File Date[09-12-89]
File Name[880992]