In Re Copelan, 250 Ga. App. 856 ( 553 S.E.2d 278) (2001). As based on theft by conversion under OCGA § 16-8-4, Blanton's civil RICO claim in this construction case required, among other things, that Blanton introduce clear and convincing evidence that the Bank obtained his property or funds for the purpose of making a "specified application" or disposition of his property.Lovell v. State, 235 Ga. App. 140, 142(b) ( 508 S.E.2d 771) (1998). However, by his amended complaint, Blanton avers only that he and the Bank entered into an oral agreement which obligated the Bank to hold the proceeds of his loan and pay them over to his contractor "in small increments as work was completed on [his] house[,]" this, only upon an oral agreement with the Bank rather than specified in the loan documents.

See Barrett v. State, 207 Ga. App. 370 ( 427 S.E.2d 845) (1993). See Cottrell v. State, 210 Ga. App. 55, 57 ( 435 S.E.2d 272) (1993); Byrd v. State, 186 Ga. App. 446, 447 (1) ( 367 S.E.2d 300) (1988); see generally Lovell v. State, 235 Ga. App. 140, 141(1) (a) ( 508 S.E.2d 771) (1998). A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property.

Pope, P.J., and Smith, J., concur. Lovell v. State, 235 Ga. App. 140, 143 (2) ( 508 S.E.2d 771) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted). See id.

The standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) is the proper test for an appellate court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, whether the challenge arises from the overruling of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal or from the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon the general grounds. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 526(1), 527 ( 314 S.E.2d 436); Lovell v. State, 235 Ga. App. 140(1) ( 508 S.E.2d 771). On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant (defendant here) no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307[, supra].