Arthur James Williams v. State
12-15-00017-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2015Background
- Appellant Arthur James Williams was indicted for burglary of a habitation (alternative means) based on entry into the Morrises' garage on June 28, 2013.
- Officer Heavner responded to an alarm, opened the garage door, observed Williams inside holding tools, and arrested him after Williams resisted and fell when the door was pushed.
- Mrs. JoAnn Morris and Officer Heavner gave conflicting testimony about the presence, location, and timing of "pry marks" on the garage/door; Mrs. Morris relied on her late husband’s identification of marks and had not previously inspected for them.
- Williams testified he entered the garage to hide from people who had just robbed and assaulted him; no theft was shown to have occurred.
- Trial jury found Williams guilty; he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. This brief is Appellant’s argument on appeal asserting legal insufficiency of the evidence to support burglary of a habitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove burglary of a habitation (intent to commit theft or attempt) | State relies on presence of tools in Williams’ hands and alleged "pry marks" as circumstantial proof of intent/attempt to steal | Williams contends conflicting, unreliable testimony about pry marks and mere possession of tools are at most preparation, not attempt; he claimed he hid from attackers | Trial court convicted; appellant seeks reversal on insufficiency grounds (appeal pending) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopting Jackson sufficiency review for Texas criminal cases)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate role is not to reweigh evidence; resolve conflicts in favor of jury)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (review is not to become a thirteenth juror)
- Dovalina v. State, 564 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (definition and proof of attempt require more than mere preparation)
- Gibbons v. State, 643 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (attempt convictions evaluated case-by-case; attempt requires acts beyond preparation)
- De Vaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (to prove attempted theft, State must show specific intent to steal a particular item and acts beyond mere preparation)