Kendrick Nelson-Phillips v. State
12-16-00109-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., multiple people forced entry into Sean Bennett’s home; Kedrick (Kedrick/Kendrick) Darks was present and threatened with firearms; Bennett fought and the assailants fled.
- Bennett called 9-1-1 and gave a vehicle description; police stopped a matching vehicle nearby and found occupants, including appellant Kendrick Nelson‑Phillips, wearing clothing matching victims’ descriptions.
- A search of the vehicle recovered firearms matching the types described by the victims; appellant was arrested and indicted for burglary of a habitation.
- The indictment alleged the entry was without the effective consent of “Kendrick Darks, the owner” (victim’s name in testimony was Kedrick Darks); appellant did not challenge the indictment or the name discrepancy at trial or on appeal.
- At trial Darks testified he was an invited overnight guest; Bennett testified he was the homeowner and that Darks occasionally stayed overnight.
- Appellant moved for a directed verdict arguing insufficient evidence that Darks was an “owner” of the habitation; the trial court denied the motion, jury convicted, and appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved the person named in the indictment was an “owner” of the habitation | State: an invited overnight guest (Darks) had a greater right to possession than an uninvited intruder, satisfying the Penal Code definition of owner | Nelson‑Phillips: evidence insufficient to show Darks was the owner as alleged in the indictment | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury rationally could find Darks an “owner” (guest has greater right to possession than intruder); directed verdict denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (challenge to directed verdict reviewed as sufficiency issue)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Jackson standard and deference to jury credibility)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (deference to jury factfinding)
- Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (factfinder may accept or reject testimony)
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (credibility and weight of evidence)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (hypothetically correct jury charge standard)
- Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (jury charge must set out essential elements)
- Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321 (statutory definitions affecting elements must be communicated in charge)
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (State must prove the person alleged as owner is the same shown by the evidence)
- Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84 (Penal Code definition of owner controls burglary prosecutions)
- Garza v. State, 344 S.W.3d 409 (expansive meaning of owner to include possessory interests)
- Alexander v. State, 753 S.W.2d 390 (owner includes anyone with greater right to possession than defendant)
- Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597 (right to possession measured at time of the offense)
- Ramirez v. State, 429 S.W.3d 686 (homeowner’s guest can be an owner for burglary purposes)