Opinion
NO. 09-11-00463-CR
05-16-2012
JAMES CAROL SHEPHERD, SR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 284th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-10-11105 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted James Carol Shepherd, Sr. of theft, sentenced Shepherd to eighteen months in state jail, and assessed a $1,500 fine. On appeal, Shepherd, acting pro se, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and complains that the theft indictment also charged him with bond forfeiture. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The "Jackson v. Virginialegal-sufficiency standard is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We assess all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We give deference to the jury's responsibility to fairly resolve conflicting testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
A person commits theft by unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of the property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2011).Unlawful appropriation occurs when a person takes property without the owner's effective consent. Id. § 31.03(b)(1). Theft is a state jail felony when the value of the appropriated property is less than $1,500 and the defendant has previously been convicted of two or more thefts of any grade. Id. § 31.03(e)(4)(D).
Because the amendments to section 31.03 are not material to this case, we cite to the current version of the statute.
The indictment charged Shepherd with unlawfully appropriating property valued at less than $1,500, to-wit, six trimmer lines and eighteen saw blades, with intent to deprive the owner, Bobby Williamson, Home Depot, of the property. The indictment does not contain, as argued by Shepherd, an allegation of bond forfeiture. The indictment further alleged that Shepherd had previously been convicted of theft on two other occasions.
On the day of the offense, Bobby Williamson, Home Depot's loss prevention officer, saw Shepherd, wearing a large, heavy camouflage jacket, enter the store. Shepherd caught Williamson's attention because it was September and the weather was warm. Williamson testified that he began observing Shepherd, and saw Shepherd select six trimmer lines, place the lines inside the sleeves of his jacket, and tighten the jacket sleeves. Williamson saw Shepherd look over his shoulder a few times and then walk to the tool area. Shepherd quickly selected merchandise, which he placed in his pockets. Shepherd looked at the security cameras, walked past the registers, and left the store. The security alarms sounded as Shepherd left the store, but Shepherd kept walking and looking over his shoulder.
Williamson testified that he detained Shepherd, who cooperated and apologized for taking the merchandise out of the building. Shepherd removed the six trimmer lines and the eighteen saw blades from his jacket. Williamson testified that Shepherd signed a "voluntary statement," in which he admitted knowingly taking six trimmer lines and eighteen saw blades from Home Depot without paying and with intent to deprive Home Depot of its right in the merchandise. Williamson testified that Shepherd did not have consent to take the merchandise, apologized for stealing the merchandise, and told Williamson that he had planned to sell the merchandise to earn money.
Officer Steve Hurd responded to the theft at Home Depot. When he arrived at the store, Hurd learned that Shepherd had concealed merchandise inside his clothing and left the store with the merchandise. Hurd described Shepherd as "blasé," as though he could not have "cared less." Hurd testified that Shepherd did not have consent to take the merchandise and never attempted to purchase the merchandise.
When determining Shepherd's intent, the jury could consider Shepherd's acts, words, and conduct. See Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The jury heard evidence that Shepherd entered Home Depot, concealed the merchandise inside his clothing, left the store without purchasing the merchandise, ignored the security alarms, admitted to taking the merchandise without purchasing it, and intended to deprive Home Depot of the merchandise. The State was not required to show actual deprivation, but was only required to prove intent to deprive. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a); see also Brown v. State, 294 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 n.5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.). Furthermore, the jury heard evidence that the merchandise was worth less than $1,500 and that Shepherd had previously been convicted of theft on two other occasions. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Shepherd unlawfully appropriated merchandise from Home Depot, without Home Depot's effective consent, and intended to deprive Home Depot of the merchandise. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (b)(1); see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Because the evidence is sufficient to support Shepherd's conviction, we overrule Shepherd's issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.