Jose Luis Lopez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-08-00732-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 25, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jose Luis Lopez was convicted of burglary of a habitation and forgery by a Cameron County jury. The jury sentenced him to ten years of confinement and a $500 fine for the burglary, and two years for the forgery, with both sentences running concurrently. Lopez contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. 

Key evidence presented at trial included testimony from victims Luis and Lucila Vega, who reported a burglary occurring between November 2007 and February 2008, during which various items including a lawnmower, jewelry, and a checkbook were stolen. They indicated the burglar entered through a damaged boarded-up window. The Vegas later discovered that Lopez had cashed a check for $50, purportedly signed by Lucila, which they testified was forged. The signature did not match Lucila's, and they had not authorized Lopez to cash any checks. 

Rene Martinez, a manager at the H.E.B. grocery store, testified that he refused to cash the check due to store policy but that another employee later cashed it. After learning of the forgery, the Vegas reported it to the police. Officer Frank Billiot confirmed a burglary had occurred after inspecting the property, and Officer Juan Jose Trevino investigated the check's forgery, obtaining security footage showing Lopez cashing the check. The court ultimately affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for both charges.

Officer Trevino identified Lopez through security footage and confirmed he cashed a forged check. Suspecting Lopez's involvement in a burglary, Trevino and Detective Martinez searched an online database, Leads Online, revealing that Lopez had pawned a Craftsman lawnmower and a Black and Decker Hedgehog electric edger on February 5, 2008, at EZ Pawn, which were later identified as belonging to the victims, the Vegas. Upon attempting to apprehend Lopez at the pawn store, he resisted and fled. Following leads from Lopez's mother, he was found hiding under a bed in his uncle's trailer on his grandmother's property, with a checkbook belonging to the Vegas in his possession. Lopez was convicted of burglary of a habitation and forgery, receiving a ten-year sentence for burglary and two years for forgery, to run concurrently. After his conviction, Lopez filed a motion for a new trial, claiming insufficient evidence for his burglary conviction and disputing the evidence for the forgery charge. The trial court denied this motion, leading to an appeal. In reviewing the case, the court will evaluate whether the evidence supports the jury’s findings, considering both legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency, while deferring to the jury's role in assessing witness credibility and evidence weight.

The State is not obligated to provide direct evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, to prove guilt; circumstantial evidence holds equal weight and can suffice for a conviction. The cumulative effect of incriminating facts can support a conviction, even if individual facts do not independently point to guilt. Legal and factual sufficiency are evaluated against the defined elements of the offense based on a hypothetically correct jury charge. In the context of burglary of a habitation, which requires unauthorized entry with intent to commit a felony, intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Juries may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, but must avoid speculation. While there is no requirement to exclude all other hypotheses, the evidence must be consistent with the defendant's guilt. Recent, unexplained possession of stolen items can support a burglary conviction, suggesting an inference of guilt. Even possession of stolen property several months after the crime can meet the criteria for a conviction if deemed sufficiently recent.

Determining the recency of possession concerning stolen property relies on case-specific facts, including the nature of the stolen items and whether the time interval between the theft and the accused’s possession allows for the possibility of an intermediate change of possession. In this case, Lopez did not provide an explanation for his possession of stolen items from the Vegas’s residence. Attempts to suggest he had been hired for yard work were refuted by the Vegas, who denied any such arrangement and stated they did not know him personally. The thefts occurred between November 2007 and February 2008, and Lopez cashed a forged check linked to these events. Evidence included recognition of stolen property (a Craftsman lawnmower and Black and Decker edger) by the victims and testimony that Lopez had pawned these items. Officer Billiot confirmed the point of entry for the burglary, while the Vegas corroborated his findings. Although Luis provided inconsistent testimony about the condition of the window at the time of the theft, the jury is responsible for resolving such conflicts. Furthermore, Officer Trevino's account of Lopez fleeing and being found hiding under a bed, along with possessing the Vegas’s checkbook at the time of arrest, contributed to the inference of guilt. Evidence of flight is permissible for the jury to infer consciousness of guilt, as established in prior case law.

The jury's inference that Lopez committed burglary was deemed rational based on several factors: he pawned or cashed stolen items identified by the victims, fled or concealed himself from law enforcement, and was found with the victims' checkbook upon arrest. The cumulative evidence was legally sufficient to uphold his burglary conviction. Furthermore, the evidence was not so weak as to undermine the jury's verdict. 

In addressing the forgery conviction, Lopez argued that he merely "passed" a check rather than "executed" it, suggesting insufficient evidence for the conviction. However, the State contended that Lopez did not preserve this issue for appeal due to a failure to timely object or file a motion to quash the indictment. Additionally, the State maintained that the indictment complied with the statutory language related to forgery, asserting the evidence was sufficient. 

Under Texas law, forgery occurs when a person forges a writing with intent to defraud, with "forge" defined as altering, making, completing, or executing a document to falsely represent another's act. Intent to defraud can be inferred if the defendant knew the writing was forged. The indictment need not elaborate on statutory definitions unless multiple methods of committing the act are alleged, which was not the case here.

The term "forge" is defined in the penal code, allowing the State to avoid specifying the means of committing the offense unless Lopez requested such details in a timely manner, which he did not. Lopez did not file a motion to quash the indictment or object to the State's phrasing regarding the manner of forgery. The indictment's language, specifically stating Lopez "executed" the check, was deemed surplusage and did not prejudice his rights. Under Texas law, an indictment is sufficient even with minor defects that do not affect the defendant's rights. The evidence presented showed that Lopez stole a checkbook, forged a check, and attempted to cash it without authorization, supporting the jury's verdict of forgery. The court found the evidence both legally and factually sufficient to affirm Lopez's conviction. Consequently, both of Lopez's issues were overruled, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.