Sabrina Gutierrez Perez v. State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-09-00137-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 8, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sabrina Gutierrez Perez was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to nine years of confinement and a $1,000 fine. The incident occurred while Perez and her partner, Enrique Alvarez, were staying at his sister's apartment. After a night of drinking, both were found near the scene of a burglary at the apartment complex's office around midnight. Witness Christina Regan observed a man, later identified as Alvarez, removing items from the office and later saw Perez join him. When police arrived, both attempted to flee but were apprehended; Alvarez was aggressive and had visible injuries. Evidence included broken doors to the office and bloodied computer equipment found nearby. At trial, Perez argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict her as a party to the burglary and contested the trial court's refusal to reread testimony requested by the jury during deliberations. Alvarez, who had previously been convicted of the same crime, testified in her defense, claiming Perez was not involved in the burglary. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has established that only legal sufficiency is required to support a conviction, as outlined in Brooks v. State. Legal sufficiency is assessed by reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The factfinder has the authority to judge witness credibility and determine the weight of their testimony, with the discretion to accept or reject any part of it.

Burglary is defined as entering a property without the owner’s consent with the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault. Theft involves appropriating another's property without consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it. A person can be criminally responsible as a party to an offense if they act with intent to promote or assist in the commission of the crime, which can occur through solicitation, direction, or aid.

Participation as a party can be inferred from events surrounding the crime and the accused’s actions reflecting a common design. An individual can be guilty of burglary without personally entering the premises if they collaborate with others. Circumstantial evidence can establish party status, and while mere presence at the scene is insufficient for conviction alone, it can contribute to a guilty finding when combined with other facts. Similarly, flight from a crime scene may imply guilt. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, a collective assessment of all incriminating factors suffices to support a guilt finding.

In Perez's case, although there was no direct evidence of her entering the office or handling stolen equipment, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish her as a party to the burglary, highlighting her involvement in the crime despite the lack of direct actions.

Regan's testimony indicated that a woman involved in a crime approached a man before leaving with him behind a fence. Evidence demonstrated that a person from the middle of the apartment complex would have to walk to either end to reach behind the fence. Alvarez testified that he walked from Gloria's apartment to the office without coming from behind the fence. Upon police arrival, they observed Perez and Alvarez fleeing from the scene and found stolen computer equipment in the field. Alvarez claimed they were coming from the same location. The apartment manager confirmed Alvarez had never been inside the office, while Perez had visited to pick up an application. The relationship between Perez and Alvarez, along with Alvarez's conviction for the burglary, supported a finding of Perez's guilt as a party to the crime. 

Regarding the trial court's discretion, Perez argued that the court erred by not rereading all requested testimony to the jury. The jury sought clarification on whether Perez and Alvarez were at Gloria's apartment when she went to sleep. The court reread part of Gloria's testimony confirming they were not there. Perez contended that two additional parts of her testimony should have been reread. Under Texas law, the trial court must assess the appropriateness of the jury's request and determine which testimony to reread. The court's decision is only disturbed if there is a clear abuse of discretion. Since Perez did not object to the limited testimony reread, the issue was not preserved for appeal. Consequently, Perez's claims were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.