on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.Appellant challenges the correctness of our conclusion that the facts are sufficient to support the conviction.
That someone burglarized the smokehouse and took therefrom the stolen property is well established.
By facts which he placed in evidence, appellant narrowed his defense so as to depend upon a finding that he got the stolen property from the residence and not the smokehouse.
In the light of this proof, we are unable to agree with the appellant that the state failed to show him in the recent possession of property taken from the burglarized premises.
*519We remain convinced that the facts support the conviction, and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.