Arthur James Williams v. State, 12-15-00017-CR

Appellant Arthur James Williams was convicted of burglary of a habitation; he appealed claiming the evidence was legally insufficient.
Police responded to an alarm around 10:00 p.m.; Detective Heavner located appellant inside the complainant’s locked garage holding tools and forced the garage door open to detain him.
Homeowner Ms. Morris testified the garage had been alarmed and locked that evening, no one had permission to enter, and tools belonging to her husband were missing from the garage.
The morning after the incident, several tools were found piled in a garden cart moved near the hedge; Ms. Morris identified them as her husband’s electrical and woodworking tools.
The State argued the combined evidence (alarm, locked door, appellant inside with tools at night, displaced tools in a cart) proved entry without consent and intent to commit theft, satisfying burglary elements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary of a habitation	State: Evidence (alarm, locked garage, defendant inside at night with complainant’s tools, displaced tools in cart) supports conviction	Williams: Evidence insufficient; appellant’s intent to steal not proven beyond conflicting testimony about pry marks and intent	Court: Evidence legally sufficient; reasonable inferences support burglary conviction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (deference to factfinder and reviewing sufficiency)
Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621 (sufficiency review principles)
Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (factfinder as sole judge of credibility)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (appellate courts cannot reweigh evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (consider cumulative force of all evidence)
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (factfinder may accept or reject witness testimony)