Opinion filed August 23, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-16-00271-CR

__________

GEORGE VICTOR AHENKORAH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 152939

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted George Victor Ahenkorah of Class B theft. The trial court 

imposed a fine of $500 as the sole punishment. In a single issue on appeal, Appellant 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

Background Facts

The information charged Appellant with unlawfully acquiring and exercising

control over a Wildgame K411 digital trail camera from Walmart without the 
2

consent of Walmart and with the intent to deprive Walmart of the camera. Appellant 

worked for Walmart as an overnight stocker at its store located on Interstate 20 in 

Midland. 

Jason Florence worked as an asset protection manager at the same Walmart 

store. Florence testified that he became aware of a theft occurring at the store when 

employees reported finding two manuals for a game camera in an area of the store 

that was managed by vendors. This area of the store was not accessible to customers 

because it was not located in the public area of the store. The employees also found 

an empty box for the camera in the same area. Florence stated that the camera was 

a “site-to-store” product that a customer had purchased online and had shipped to 

the store for pick up by the customer. The camera was placed on a set of shelves 

along with other items marked with orange tape indicating that they were site-tostore products.

Florence reviewed surveillance video from the store in order to determine who 

opened the camera box. Florence assumed that a Walmart associate had opened it 

because of the area of the store where the site-to-store products were located. The 

video indicated that Appellant was opening site-to-store boxes. Florence testified 

that Appellant’s job duties did not include opening these boxes because site-to-store 

products would not be stocked on store shelves but, rather, were held for customers

to pick up. The surveillance video also revealed Appellant walking away with the 

camera. Florence also observed Appellant cutting the thick, plastic packaging off

the camera with his box cutter and placing the plastic packaging into a cardboard 

compactor. The surveillance video also revealed Appellant carrying the camera in 

his hand.

Florence notified his supervisor of the missing item, and they contacted the 

customer who purchased the item to let him know that the camera had been taken. 

Florence testified that Walmart reimbursed the customer because the item had 
3

already been paid for. Florence and the supervisor later called Appellant in for an 

interview. Appellant provided a handwritten statement at the interview, which

provided as follows:

I sincerely and honestly apologize for causing a loss and a shrinkage1

to Walmart. I agree to opening a package when I was not supposed to. 

That day, I was under trauma since my brother had been on admission 

at the hospital and I barely had sleep. This made me sleepy on the said 

night. I mistakenly opened that box and not all the contents of it were 

returned to claims. 

I am therefore making a humble appeal to asset protection and 

management to kindly let me make the issue right. I apologize for my 

negligence and I am willing to do all things possible to make the 

situation right.

I hereby affirm my total commitment to help reduce shrinkage and loss. 

The amount of the item is $61.71 and I promise to do what the company 

will ask me to do to make this right even if I have to pay the full cost of 

the item. 

Florence testified that Appellant told him and the supervisor that Appellant placed 

the camera in his pocket but that it may have fallen out. However, Appellant stated 

that he had taken the cord for the camera home with him. The camera was never 

recovered. 

Analysis

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard 

of review set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Brooks v. State, 323 

S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89 

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the Jackson standard, 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 offense beyond a 

 1

Florence defined “shrink” as “the unidentified or identified loss of merchandise in a store.” 
4

reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When conducting a sufficiency review, we consider all the 

evidence admitted at trial, including pieces of evidence that may have been 

improperly admitted. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2013); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to 

the factfinder’s role as the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight 

their testimony is to be afforded. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. This standard accounts 

for the factfinder’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, 

and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 

U.S. at 319; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. When the record supports conflicting 

inferences, we presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the 

verdict, and we defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Clayton, 235 

S.W.3d at 778.

Appellant directs his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the 

element of intent. He contends that there is insufficient evidence that he had an 

intent to deprive Walmart of the camera. He asserts that the jury could not have 

rationally found that he intended to deprive Walmart of the camera because he stated 

that he negligently opened the box because he was tired.

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with the intent 

to deprive the owner of the property. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West 

Supp. 2017). “[T]he gravamen of theft is in depriving the true owner of the use, 

benefit, enjoyment or value of his property, without his consent.” Stewart v. State,

44 S.W.3d 582, 588–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting McClain v. State, 687 

S.W.2d 350, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). “A person acts intentionally, or with 

intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it 

is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.”

PENAL § 6.03(a) (West 2011). “Deprive” means “to withhold property from the 
5

owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the 

value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner” or “to dispose of property in 

a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.” Id.

§ 31.01(2)(A), (C).

The issue of intent in a theft case is a fact question for the jury to resolve. See 

State v. Fuller, 480 S.W.3d 812, 823 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d). 

Intent is typically proven through circumstantial evidence. See Robles v. State, 664 

S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). “It is well settled that the intent to commit 

theft may be inferred from the circumstances.” Lewis v. State, 715 S.W.2d 655, 657 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App.

2004) (“Intent may also be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as acts, 

words, and the conduct of the appellant.”).

Appellant contends that his written statement, his oral admissions to store 

officials, and his actions on the surveillance video showed that he only acted 

negligently with respect to the game camera and that he did not have an intent to 

deprive Walmart of the game camera. We disagree. The jury’s decision to accept 

or reject the reason that Appellant gave for his actions involved a credibility 

determination for the jury to make. The jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’

credibility, and we defer to that resolution when asked to review the sufficiency of 

the evidence. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. 

The evidence in this case shows that Appellant removed the camera from an 

area where site-to-store items were stored and clearly marked. These items were not 

stocked on store shelves for customers to purchase because they were items 

purchased online by customers and shipped to the store for pickup. In addition to 

removing the camera from this location, Appellant removed the camera from its box, 

discarded the manuals that accompanied it, cut off the plastic packaging that 

contained the camera, discarded the packaging, and placed the camera in his pocket. 
6

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of 

fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant acted with the intent 

to deprive Walmart of the camera. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to 

support Appellant’s conviction. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

JOHN M. BAILEY 

JUSTICE

August 23, 2018

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, J.; Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals2

;

and Wright, S.C.J.3

Willson, J., not participating. 

 2

Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment 

to the 11th Court of Appeals.

3

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.