|
|
|
|
Opinion filed September 25, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-07-00095-CR
__________
RICHARD JOSEPH FIELDS, JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR111,641
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant was charged by information with theft over $500 but less than $1,500. The information alleged that appellant unlawfully acquired tires and rims without the effective consent of the owner, Warren Tullous, of Discount Tire. A jury found appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to confinement in the Midland County Jail for a period of nine months. We affirm.
Issue on Appeal
Appellant asserts that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the jury=s guilty verdict because the State failed to prove special ownership.
Standard of Review
In order to determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether 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 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The factfinder is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Adelman v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
Analysis
Theft occurs when a person unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 31.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Appropriation is unlawful if it is without the owner=s effective consent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 31.03(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008). An owner is a person who has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the actor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 1.07(a)(35) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Possession means actual care, custody, control, or management. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Exclusive control of the property need not be vested in the owner. Turner v. State, 636 S.W.2d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Anyone who had a greater right to possess, control, or manage the stolen property than appellant could be alleged as the owner of the property. Long v. State, 7 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. App.CBeaumont 1999, no pet.). Proof of ownership may be made by direct or circumstantial evidence. Robertson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 701, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
When the property stolen is the property of a corporation, it is permissible to allege ownership in some natural person acting for the corporation such as an employee who has care, custody, and control of the property. Harrell v. State, 852 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Compton v. State, 607 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Castillo v. State, 469 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). It is the employment relationship that determines whether a given individual can be a Aspecial owner@ of the property. Cross v. State, 590 S.W.2d 510, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Manning v. State, 68 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2000, pet. ref=d). A person acting on behalf of a corporation, with managerial authority and responsibility over its goods, is the effective owner. Johnson v. State, 606 S.W.2d 894, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Manning, 68 S.W.3d at 698.
Brian Harrington, a manager at Discount Tire, testified that Warren Tullous worked at Discount Tire on the day the offense occurred. Harrington testified that he gave the paperwork to Tullous to ensure that appellant paid for the tires and rims. However, before Tullous could take appellant=s money, appellant drove off in the vehicle with the new tires and rims. Kelly Cruce testified that he worked at Discount Tire on the day that appellant came in to get his tires and rims. He further testified that Tullous went to take appellant=s money for the new tires and rims but was unable to get the money before appellant drove off.
Here, the evidence established ownership in Warren Tullous because Tullous was an employee of Discount Tire who had custody and control over the property until it was sold and had the responsibility to make the sale to appellant. The record establishes that Tullous had a greater right to possession of the property than appellant. The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the jury=s verdict. We overrule appellant=s issue on appeal.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
RICK STRANGE
JUSTICE
September 25, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.