Ford v. State
860 S.W.2d 731, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2495, 1993 WL 338632 (1993)
Rule of Law:
An intrusion into a closed tool box, when the tool box is bolted and welded to a vehicle's bed, constitutes "entry" into an "enclosed part of a vehicle" for the purpose of the offense of burglary of a vehicle under Texas law, distinguishing it from items merely attached to the exterior of the vehicle.
Facts:
- On January 29, 1992, at approximately 5:00 a.m., Jimmy Maranda was delivering newspapers to a Texaco station in Lufkin.
- Mr. Maranda observed an individual, later identified as the appellant, crouched suspiciously behind a pickup truck parked at Wheat’s Alternator and Starter Service, a business adjacent to the Texaco station that was closed at that hour.
- Mr. Maranda drove to the police station and reported the suspicious events.
- Officer Phil Davis of the Lufkin Police Department was dispatched to Wheat's and observed the appellant standing on the driver's side of the truck, crouched over a box, and then ducking and walking away upon seeing the patrol unit.
- Officer Davis commanded the appellant to stop, and when appellant stopped, he dropped several "shining" objects to the ground, which made a clanking sound.
- Officer Davis recovered a screwdriver, a crescent wrench, a pair of scissors, and a bolt from the spot where appellant had been standing.
- The pickup truck belonged to Raul Rodrigues and had two tool boxes bolted and welded to its bed, one of which was an unlocked tool box on the driver's side.
- Mr. Rodrigues identified the recovered screwdriver and crescent wrench as his property that he had unequivocally left inside the tool box on his truck, and he noticed a portable warning light inside the tool box had been turned upside-down.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was indicted for the felony offense of Burglary of a Vehicle, with two separate enhancement allegations raising his punishment status to that of a habitual offender.
- Following a guilty verdict, a jury assessed appellant's punishment at ninety-nine (99) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and fined him $10,000.
- Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, presenting two points of error: (1) the prosecutor’s jury argument was improper as a comment on the accused’s failure to testify, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that the appellant committed the offense of Burglary of a Vehicle.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intrusion into a closed tool box, which is bolted and welded to the bed of a pickup truck, constitute "entry" into an "enclosed part of a vehicle" for the offense of burglary of a vehicle under Texas Penal Code Ann. sec. 30.04?
Opinions:
Majority - WALKER, Chief Justice
No, the prosecutor's jury argument was not fundamentally harmful and the complaint was not preserved for appellate review; and yes, the evidence was sufficient to prove "entry" into an "enclosed part of a vehicle" for the offense of Burglary of a Vehicle. Regarding the first point of error, the court held that the appellant failed to object to the prosecutor's argument at trial, thus failing to preserve the complaint for appellate review under Tex.R.App.P. 52(a). The court found the argument was not so fundamentally harmful as to waive the necessity of an objection, citing Johnson v. State and Espinoza v. State. Regarding the second point of error, concerning the sufficiency of the evidence for "entry," the court reviewed the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict. The court analyzed Texas Penal Code Ann. sec. 30.04, which defines "enter" as intruding any part of the body or any physical object connected with the body. Appellant argued that the tool box was analogous to hubcaps or tires, which Griffin v. State held did not constitute "entry" because they are attached to the exterior and do not involve entry into an "enclosed portion" of the vehicle. The court clarified Griffin, explaining that "entry" requires an intrusion into "the interior or enclosed part" of a habitation, building, or vehicle. It distinguished between items merely attached to the exterior (not burglary) and items located within an enclosed part (which is burglary if intrusion occurs). The court concluded that the tool box, being bolted and welded to the truck and having a closed lid, was "for all intents and purposes, an enclosed part of the truck, analogous to the enclosed area beneath the hood or trunk lid of a vehicle." Since the evidence indicated appellant took tools from inside this tool box, the court found sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude that the "entry" element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, citing Jackson v. Virginia and Geesa v. State.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of "entry" for vehicle burglary in Texas, particularly concerning auxiliary compartments. By deeming a securely attached and closed tool box as an "enclosed part of a vehicle," the court broadens the protection offered by the burglary statute beyond the traditional passenger compartment or trunk. It provides a crucial distinction for applying the Griffin v. State precedent, ensuring that the statute encompasses all distinct, enclosed compartments of a vehicle that require an intrusion to access, thereby reinforcing the legislative intent to protect property within such enclosures. This interpretation impacts future cases by guiding lower courts in determining what constitutes an "enclosed part" and expanding the potential reach of vehicle burglary charges.
