Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burchett, Ronald David v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-01-00394-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 26, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ronald D. Burchett appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation and three counts of aggravated assault, resulting in an 18-year prison sentence and a $2,000 fine for each count. The case arose from an incident in December 2000, where Burchett and accomplice Nick Fernandez confronted Robert Zingaro at his home, seeking Christopher Sylvester, Zingaro's stepson. After being told Christopher was not home, they forcibly entered Zingaro's residence, leading to a struggle that involved pepper spray, a handgun, and electrical zipties to restrain Zingaro. When Christopher and his friend Shea Finley arrived, Burchett pointed the gun at them and ordered them to comply. Christopher managed to fire the gun into the floor while handcuffed, and the altercation ended when police arrived. Burchett later confessed to the crime, though he claimed during testimony that he was invited in. The jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented. Burchett argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically claiming the State did not provide corroborating evidence beyond his confession. The appellate court reviews the evidence favorably to the verdict to determine if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court does not evaluate whether evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or resolve factual conflicts, as this is the responsibility of the trier of fact. Instead, the court assesses whether the trier's findings are rational, viewing all trial evidence favorably towards the verdict and resolving inconsistencies in favor of the verdict. If evidence is insufficient for a conviction, a judgment of acquittal must be entered. The sufficiency of evidence is measured against the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct charge. For burglary of a habitation under Texas law, the offense occurs when a person enters a building without the owner's consent and commits or attempts a felony, theft, or assault. Assault involves intentionally threatening another with imminent bodily injury, while aggravated assault involves using a deadly weapon during the assault. Consent is not valid if obtained through force, threat, or fraud. In this case, Zingaro testified that he ordered the Appellant and Fernandez to leave, but they forcibly entered his home, corroborated by Appellant’s confession. Witness credibility is at the jury's discretion, and the jury could rationally find that Appellant entered without consent. Regarding the aggravated assault, multiple victims testified Appellant brandished a gun, causing fear for their lives. Despite Appellant's denial of intent to harm, the jury could choose to believe or disbelieve his testimony. The appellate court affirms the trial court's judgment, having overruled Appellant’s issue on review.