Daniel Lee Spinks v. State, 08-19-00172-CR

Appellant Daniel Lee Spinks was convicted (70 years) of burglary of a habitation (indictment alleged he entered and "attempted to commit or committed theft" of a television) and appealed on sufficiency grounds.
Blanca Hernandez returned home and found a locked door and window previously secured now open, a missing television, personal items tossed outside beneath an open window, and a camera partially covered by underwear.
A date‑/time‑stamped still from Hernandez’s security camera (Feb. 13, 2018, 1:23:55 a.m.) showed a hooded person looking at the camera; police officers identified Spinks in the photo and placed him in a nearby house that night.
Kriselle Martinez (Spinks’s live‑in girlfriend) wrote a letter and gave a recorded interview saying she alone stole the TV, that Spinks only walked her home and did not go inside or throw items out the window.
The jury heard the camera photo, physical evidence (open entry points, missing TV, items outside, covered camera), and Martinez’s statement; the defense did not dispute Spinks had been inside the house that night.
The court instructed the jury only on the indictment’s theory (entered and committed/attempted theft); the jury convicted and the court entered judgment (a clerical variance in the written judgment referenced an uncharged theory).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence is legally sufficient to support burglary conviction (entry and committed/attempted theft)	State: circumstantial and direct evidence (camera photo placing Spinks inside, physical signs of theft, covered camera, items thrown outside) supports conviction, alternatively as a party	Spinks: insufficient evidence of commission/attempted theft or intent; Martinez’s admission exculpates him; no direct witness to him taking the TV	Court affirmed: evidence (photo, physical circumstances, rejection of parts of Martinez’s account) sufficient to prove he committed or attempted to commit theft, and sufficed under law of parties if needed

Arroyo v. State, 559 S.W.3d 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (legal‑sufficiency standard)
Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (sufficiency measured against hypothetically correct charge)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (conviction cannot rest on an uncharged offense)
Crenshaw v. State, 378 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (jury presumed to follow charge)
Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (circumstantial evidence may establish parties liability)
Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (presence plus encouragement supports parties conviction)
LaPoint v. State, 750 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (entry at night without consent permits inference of intent to steal)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard)