Jonathan Lee Fehr v. State
03-15-00231-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 19, 2015Background
- Appellant Jonathan Lee Fehr appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation after a jury trial; sentence imposed was 15 years’ confinement and a $7,500 fine.
- Pope’s October 7–8, 2013 burglary of his residence included missing cash, a lawnmower, a trailer, a TV, and other items; Pope’s bank check was forged the same period.
- Napolez testified Brittany Anderson initiated entry to Pope’s residence to retrieve belongings, while Fehr allegedly loaded items and waited outside.
- The carport where the trailer and lawnmower were kept was argued by Fehr’s side not to be a habitation or part of one; the television ended up found in Fehr’s trailer.
- Evidence tying Fehr to a burglary as principal actor hinges on whether Fehr personally entered the habitation; the State relied on theories of entry or accomplice liability under the law of parties.
- Fehr seeks reversal and acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence supporting either a principal actor burglary or party liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of principal-actor burglary | Fehr did not enter Pope’s habitation | State contends he entered or aided the entry | Insufficient evidence to prove Fehr entered habitation |
| Legal sufficiency under the law of parties | No prior agreement or intent by Fehr to commit burglary | There was an agreement/intent and Fehr aided in burglary | Insufficient evidence to support party liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
- Davila v. State, 547 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (burglary elements; entering habitation)
- Day v. State, 534 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (enclosed structure; carport not a habitation)
- Morrison v. State, 608 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (pre-offense acts; adequacy of agreement evidence)
- Urtado v. State, 605 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (requirement that agreement precede or accompany the crime)
- Swain v. State, 583 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (carport/open structure not part of habitation; burglary limits)
- Day v. State, 534 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (carport not a building protected by burglary statute)