Matthew Aaron Powell v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00407-CR

Matthew Aaron Powell,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Judge David G. Hilburn, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 22-01226-CRF-361

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew Aaron Powell was found guilty by a jury of the second-degree

felony offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court assessed his

punishment at ten years in the penitentiary and a $1,000 fine. The trial court

further suspended imposition of the sentence and placed the defendant on

community supervision for six years. Powell brings this appeal in which he

contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he “committed theft
or intended to commit theft” of property, and (2) the only crime proven was the

lesser included offense of criminal trespass. We will affirm.

A. Background

In March 2021, Katherine Plaue and her roommate, Lauren Mitchell,

were attending classes at Texas A&M when Plaue checked the security

cameras she had installed in their condominium. Plaue had placed two

cameras in their condominium, one in the living room, and one in her bedroom,

to be able to check on her dog while she was away. On March 18, 2021, around

9:20 in the morning, Plaue checked the living room camera and saw Powell in

her dining room coming from a set of French doors in the rear of the

condominium. Powell appeared to be heading toward the stairs while grabbing

his genitals. Plaue called 9-1-1, and, while on the phone she checked her

bedroom camera where she saw Powell going through her clothes in her packed

travel bag. Plaue saw him pushing items aside while digging around her bag

before he selected a pair of her underwear. Powell then held up the pair of

underwear, stared at them, and then balled them up in his left hand. Plaue

then observed Powell move toward her dresser, while masturbating, and

intently stare at a collection of photos of herself and her husband and her

family. Plaue then saw Powell leave her room with her underwear in his hand

and go to Mitchell’s room, where there was no camera. Plaue then used the

Powell v. State Page 2
downstairs camera’s speaker to yell at Powell to get out of the house and inform

him that she was calling 9-1-1. Powell then ran out of Mitchell’s room, down

the stairs, and out of the condominium.

In March 2024, Powell was indicted for burglary of a habitation. See TEX.

PEN. CODE ANN. § 30.02. The case was reindicted in June 2024, adding

Mitchell as an additional complainant. At trial, the defendant pled not guilty

to the burglary of a habitation charge.

B. Issue One

On appeal, Powell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his burglary of a habitation conviction. Powell argues that the State failed to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “committed theft or intended to

commit theft.”

1. Authority

The Court of Criminal Appeals has defined our standard of review of

a sufficiency issue as follows:

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard requires the appellate court
to defer “to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve
conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson,

Powell v. State Page 3
443 U.S. at 319. We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute
our judgment for that of the factfinder. Williams v. State, 235
S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The court conducting a
sufficiency review must not engage in a “divide and conquer”
strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the evidence.
Villa, 514 S.W.3d at 232. Although juries may not speculate about
the meaning of facts or evidence, juries are permitted to draw any
reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is
supported by the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State, 507
S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S.
at 319); see also Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). We presume that the factfinder resolved any
conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and
we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This is because the jurors are the exclusive
judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight
to be given to the testimony. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone
may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative
force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support
the conviction. Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

2. Analysis

The issue raised by Powell is whether the evidence is sufficient to find

beyond a reasonable doubt that Powell entered the habitation and “committed

theft or intended to commit theft” of property once he entered. See TEX. PEN.

CODE ANN. § 30.02.

To prove the offense of burglary of a habitation as charged in the

indictment, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Powell v. State Page 4
Powell (1) intentionally and knowingly entered his entire body into a

habitation, without the effective consent of Katherine Plaue or Lauren

Mitchell, and (2) attempted to commit or committed theft of property, namely,

one item of underwear or one item of clothing owned by Katherine Plaue.

Powell argues that during trial, the State’s repeated theory was that

Powell entered Plaue’s and Mitchell’s condominium for purposes of sexual

gratification. Powell points to the State’s opening statement to support his

contention when the State said, “It’s evident why he was there. He makes that

clear by having his hand on his penis the entire time. That’s why he was

there.” Powell contends that because he was “never in a hurry” to get out of

the condominium that theft was not the motive.

Powell contends that there is insufficient evidence of an actual or

attempted theft because Plaue never identified what was missing, the color or

size of the underwear, that a video showed the panties in Powell’s hand and a

subsequent video did not, that the detectives did not search the entire

condominium looking for the underwear, and that no panties were found in the

search of Powell’s home.

The evidence presented during the trial included the testimony of Plaue,

who described what she observed Powell doing on the security cameras in the

condominium. As stated above, Powell digging through her packed travel bag

Powell v. State Page 5
pushing items aside rather than grabbing the first item he saw, removing a

pair of her underwear and holding them up to eye level and staring at them,

crumpling them up in his left hand, and leaving her room with them. In

addition to Plaue’s observations, she confirmed she never consented to Powell

entering her condominium or to him taking her underwear. Plaue also testified

that she never saw the pair of panties again, even after looking for them, and

that they were never found in the condominium during the additional three

years she lived there. Plaue’s roommate, Mitchell, confirmed she never found

Plaue’s underwear in her own bedroom nor did Mitchell ever find any

underwear of any kind in the condominium after the incident. Mitchell added

that she keeps a compartmentalized underwear drawer and folds items a

certain way, and she would have noticed an unfamiliar or misplaced pair of

underwear in her dresser.

The jury is allowed to draw reasonable inferences. Jackson, 443 U.S. at

319. We will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of

the factfinder. Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750. The jury could have drawn a

reasonable inference that Powell left with the underwear, even though a search

of Powell’s house hours later did not result in recovery of the underwear.

Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a

rational trier of fact could have found all the essential elements of the offense

Powell v. State Page 6
charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore overrule Powell’s first issue.

Having done so, we need not address Powell’s second issue.

C. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do not publish
CR25

Powell v. State Page 7