ROBERT AMARO, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion issued November 18, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00508-CR
............................
ROBERT AMARO, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2009-1-541
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Francis
        A jury convicted Robert Amaro Jr. of criminal mischief and assessed punishment at ninety days confinement in the county jail, probated for eighteen months. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
        The jury heard testimony from three witnesses. Dana Buckelew testified she drove her sons to a fast-food restaurant in Van Alstyne after school on November 10, 2008. While in the drive-thru lane, Buckelew saw a woman standing outside a car parked near the drive-thru lane. The woman was yelling and cursing at a man who sat inside the car. As the couple yelled and cursed at one another, the man began throwing “stuff” out of the car. Because Buckelew believed the argument might escalate to a physical fight, she dialed 911. After a dispatcher told her an officer was en route, Buckelew got her food from the drive-thru window and left the area. Buckelew did not know the man or the woman and said she would not be able to identify either one.
        Diedre Ford, appellant's girlfriend and the complainant in this case, testified her five-year relationship with appellant had been “a little off and on.” On November 10, 2008, she drove from her home in Gunter to Segoville to pick up appellant at his parents' house. They had been separated at that time, but they were trying to get back together. While they drove to Ford's house, she received a telephone call from “some guy who wouldn't leave me alone.” Appellant became angry when she refused to let him see her telephone, and they argued. Ford eventually turned her car around and headed back to appellant's home, telling him she was taking him back home and she would “kick him out of the car” if he did not calm down. Appellant continued arguing, then he repeatedly “punched” the car's stereo with his hand, cracking the screen and damaging it.
        At that point, Ford pulled her car into the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant, got out of the car on the driver's side, and ordered appellant to get out of her car. After appellant began throwing her belongings out of the car, Ford called 911. When an officer arrived, Ford told him what had happened and that appellant had damaged her car stereo. When appellant said he was not going to fix the stereo, Ford told the officer she wanted to file charges against appellant. Ford told the jury the stereo cost her “four hundred and something dollars” when she had purchased it about six months earlier, and repairs would cost as much as buying a new car stereo. Ford said appellant gave her $500 in cash for the stereo about one year after the incident.
        Van Alstyne Police Officer Chad Vessels arrived at the scene and saw Ford standing outside a vehicle on the driver's side, and appellant was sitting in the front passenger seat. Some of Ford's personal belongings were laying on the ground outside the vehicle. Ford was “visibly shaken and upset,” and said she and appellant had a verbal altercation, he refused to get out of her car, he had broken her “CD player by punching it more than once,” and he threw her belongings out of the car. Appellant said he and Ford got into a fight and he got mad and punched her car stereo. Appellant admitted he caused damage to the stereo, and stated he did so only because he was mad. Vessels asked Ford if she wanted to pursue charges. Ford said pursing charges against appellant was the only way she would get paid back for the damage to her stereo. Vessels arrested appellant.
        In two points of error, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has overruled Clewis v. State, holding that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard a reviewing court is to apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brooks v. State, No. PD-0210-09, 2010 WL 3894613, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (plurality op.). Therefore, we will address appellant's issues under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
        In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 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); Brooks, 2010 WL 3894613, at *1. We are required to defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326 (“a court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume-even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record-that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution”).
        The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, without the effective consent of the owner, intentionally or knowingly damaged or destroyed the tangible property of the owner. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a)(1) (West Supp. 2010). Also, the value of pecuniary loss is a crucial additional element of criminal mischief because it determines the grade of the offense. Id. § 28.03(b); Elomary v. State, 796 S.W.2d 191, 192-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). If property is damaged, pecuniary loss is determined by the cost of repairing or restoring the damaged property within a reasonable time. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.06(b) (West 2003). A pecuniary loss of $50 or more but less than $500 supports conviction of the offense as a Class B misdemeanor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(b)(2) (West Supp. 2010).
        Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient because Ford's testimony regarding the value of the damage to the stereo is a “guess or estimate.” Appellant asserts Ford was never qualified as an expert witness in car stereos, and no evidence exists as to the repair or replacement costs of the stereo. The State responds the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
        Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he intentionally damaged Ford's property without her effective consent. His challenge is to the “pecuniary loss” element the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The owner of property is competent to testify as to the value of his own property. See Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The jury heard Ford's testimony that she paid “four hundred and something dollars” when she purchased the car stereo, the repairs to the stereo would cost as much as purchasing it new, and appellant paid her $500 in cash for the damage he caused to the stereo.
        Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant caused damage at a cost of repair of at least $50 but less than $500. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks, 2010 WL 3894613, at *1. We overrule appellant's points of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MOLLY FRANCIS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100508F.U05