Randolph v. State

I dissent to a reversal of this conviction. The majority holds that the evidence is insufficient to connect the appellant with the burglary. The record reflects the following incriminating facts:

A) Appellant, accompanied by his brother, Pat, some seven plus months after the burglary possessed (pawned) two saddles stolen during the burglary.1

B) At the time the appellant possessed (pawned) these saddles, there was a silver plate “nailed” on the back of one of these saddles marked with the name Pat, underneath which was the name Mike tooled into the leather. There had been an attempt to cut off…