Emilio Ramirez-Lira v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 63rd Judicial District Court of Val Verde County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00498-CR
Emilio RAMIREZ-LIRA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 9282
Honorable Thomas F. Lee, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2003

AFFIRMED

Emilio Ramirez-Lira appeals the judgment convicting him upon a jury's verdict of burglary of a habitation and sentencing him to eight years imprisonment. Ramirez-Lira argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the entry element of the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003) (defining burglary). We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Ramirez-Lira first argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding of entry because the State failed to present direct evidence of entry, such as "fingerprint or heel print evidence" or "eyewitness testimony placing defendant at the scene of the crime." However, direct evidence of entry is not required. Rather, entry may "be established by inference, just as inferences may-and often must-be used to prove the elements of any other offense." Lopez v. State, 884 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, pet. ref'd). And the State presented legally sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to infer entry. Texas Ranger Leslie Brooks Long testified that, during his investigation into the burglary, he found a pair of socks approximately forty yards from the residence; and subsequent DNA testing confirmed that the socks likely belonged to Ramirez-Lira. Ranger Long also testified that several witnesses saw a man matching Ramirez-Lira's description near the residence the day the burglary occurred. Moreover, Ranger Long testified that Ramirez-Lira was in possession of several of the stolen items at the time of his arrest, including a loaf of bread; a Case yellow-handled, two-bladed pocket knife; and a black leather belt. Further, Ramirez-Lira was in possession of a blue bag containing several other stolen items, including a roll of paper towels; a pair of thermal socks; and a brand-new red handkerchief. All of these items were later identified as having been stolen during the burglary. Later, a rodeo trophy belt buckle and a loaded .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver were found in the bunkhouse where Ramirez-Lira had been found. The belt buckle and revolver were also later identified as having been stolen during the burglary.

Ramirez-Lira next argues that, although "the unexplained possession of recently stolen property will support an inference of guilt of the offense in which the property is stolen, "[i]f the defendant explains his possession of the property, the record must demonstrate that the explanation is false or unreasonable." We disagree. "[W]hether the explanation is reasonable is still a question of fact [and] [t]he finder of fact is not bound to accept a defendant's explanation for possession of recently stolen property." Buchanan v. State, 780 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd). Here, the State presented "sufficient evidence to permit [the jury] to infer [Ramirez-Lira's] possession of recently stolen property as a circumstance of guilt." Hardesty v. State, 656 S.W.2d 73, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

When initially questioned by Ranger Long, Ramirez-Lira denied having been at the scene of the burglary, denied knowing where the loaf of bread had come from, and claimed to have taken the pocket knife from some illegal aliens at the river. Later, Ramirez-Lira admitted he had in fact worked for the owner of the ranch where the burglary had occurred. On further questioning, Ramirez-Lira claimed the stolen articles of clothing had been given to him by three illegal aliens; but he did not explain his possession of the other stolen items. In light of his inconsistent statements regarding having been at the scene of the burglary and his failure to explain his possession of all of the stolen items, we hold the State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to disbelieve Ramirez-Lira's explanation of his possession of some of the stolen property and infer Ramirez-Lira's entry into the residence. See Lopez, 884 S.W.2d at 921.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish