ROY LEE SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion per Curiam filed November 1, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01084-CR
............................
ROY LEE SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-82305-MI
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices Howell, Rowe and Kinkeade
        Roy Lee Smith appeals his jury conviction for burglary of a vehicle. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at forty years' confinement. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
        Appellant testified at the punishment phase of the trial and admitted that he committed the offense. By admitting his guilt to the offense for which he had been found guilty appellant, for legal purposes, entered the equivalent of a plea of guilty. See DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 973 (1985). Thus, appellant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. Nevertheless, we will address appellant's point on the merits.
        John Bernard testified that he watched from a second-floor window as appellant looked inside a car and tried the door as if to see if it were unlocked. He then watched appellant pick up a brick and throw it through the car's window. Appellant took a purse from inside the car and ran. Bernard ran down the stairs and outside the building. During that time, he lost sight of appellant. Bernard and two other persons chased appellant. During the chase, appellant dropped the purse. He was finally caught in front of a convenience store and turned over to the police. Bernard identified appellant in court as the person he saw break into the car and steal the purse. The owner of the car testified that she did not know appellant and did not give him permission to enter her car.
        Appellant testified that he was coming out of the convenience store when Bernard and two other men jumped him. He did not know why they jumped him. He denied breaking into the car. Appellant admitted that he had been convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, two cases of possession of cocaine, and aggravated robbery. At the punishment phase, appellant admitted that he committed the offense. He also conceded that he had lied when he said he had just come out of the convenience store and Bernard and his companions attacked him for no reason.
        The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Marroquin v. State, 746 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Garrett v. State, 682 S.W.2d 301, 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009 (1985). Evidence presented at the punishment stage of the trial may be considered in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for the primary offense. DeGarmo, 691 S.W.2d at 661.
        An eyewitness testified that he saw someone throw a brick through the window of a car and take a purse from inside the car. He unequivocally identified appellant as the perpetrator. Although appellant initially denied the commission of the offense, he later admitted his guilt. The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony and may accept or reject any or all of the testimony of the witnessess of either the State or the accused. Bonham v. State, 680 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985). We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction for burglary of a vehicle. We overrule his sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
881084F.UO5
 
 
File Date[11-01-89]
File Name[881084F]