## NO. 12

- 21

- 00156

- CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

CINDA MARIE WOFFORD , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEA L FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDU M OPINION Cinda Marie Wofford appeals her conviction for theft of property with a value of less than $2,500 with two prior theft convictions . In one issue, she argues that the evid ence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s judgment. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charge d by indictment with the ft of property with a value of less than $2,500 and pleaded “not guilty.” The indictment further alleged that Appellan t twice had been previously convicted of theft. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury fou nd Appellant “guilty” as charged . Following a trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twelve months , and t his appeal followed.

E VIDENTIARY S UFFICIENCY In her sole issue, Appellant argues that the evidence is legally i nsufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.2 Standard of Review and Applicable Law
The Jackson v. Virginia 1 legal sufficiency standar d is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to suppo rt each element of a criminal offense that the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Legal sufficiency is the constitutional minimum required by the Due Process Clause of th e Fourteenth Amendment to sustain a
criminal conviction. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 315

– 16, 99 S. Ct. at 2786

– 87; see also Escobedo
v. State , 6 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1999, pet. ref’d). The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency challenge i s whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable d oubt. See Jackson , 443 U. S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; see also Johnson v. State , 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Johnson , 871 S.W.2d at 186. A jury is free to believe all or any part of a witness’s testimony or disbelieve all or any part of that testimony. See Le e v. State , 176 S.W.3d 452, 458 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 2004), aff’d , 206 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006 ). A successful legal suf ficiency challenge will result in rendition of an acquittal by the reviewing

court. See Tibbs v. Florida , 457 U.S. 3 1, 41

– 42, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2217

– 18, 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct ev idence in establishing gui lt, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Rodriguez v. State , 521 S.W.3d 822, 827 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Sorrells v. State , 343 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 1)). Each fact need not p oint directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminati ng circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. See Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Juries are permit ted to draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial. Id. at 15. Juries are not permitted to come to conclusions based on mere speculation or factually unsupported i nferences or presumptions. Id. An inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them, while speculation is mere theorizing or guessing about the possible meaning of facts and evidence presented. Id. at 16.

1 443 U.S. 307, 315

– 16, 9 9 S. Ct. 2781, 2786

– 87, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).3 The sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. See Malik v. State , 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Such a charge would include one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the
indi ctment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict
the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the
defendant is tried.” Id.
Evidence at T rial At trial, Wal

- Mart L oss
- prevention Officer Lisa Gonzales testified that her job at the Troup Highway Wal

- Mart location in Tyler, Texas en tails her “ walking the floor ” and looking
for people attempting to steal merchandise

. The State introduced video surveillance footage,
whi ch was played for the jury while Gonzales ’s testimony was interspersed with the video as
narration. Gonzales stated that she was working on April 8, 2020, when she noticed Appellant
and another woman identified as Shamica Hill, who were adding clothing it ems to the basket of a
motorized shopping cart . According to Gonzales, the fact that the basket also contained a pur se that appeared to be mostly empty caused her to become suspicious of the two women ’s activities

. She testified that her suspicion became fur ther elevated when she saw Appellant remove a pair of shorts from the hanger before placing them in the cart’s ba sket. She explained that this is a common practice when people are planning to steal clothing be cause remov ing the item of clothing from t he hanger makes it easier to conceal. She subsequently observed Appellant step out of the motorized cart, walk behin d a display wall , and put items of clothing in the purse. Gonzales testified that she followed the two women as the y moved to the phone ac cessories
aisle , where she observed Appellant remove a phone cord from its packaging and put the cord in her pocket

. Gonzales further testified that the two women then went t o the boys’ clothing department, where she witnessed Appellant discard an empty p iece of product packa ging and
hide store merchandise in the purse. Gonzales stated that a fter Hill and Wofford paid for a few
items at a self

- checkout lane, she and two other Wal

- Mart employee s met them as they exited the

store. According to Gonzales, Ap pellant denied she had stolen anything , but a moment later she
removed a phone cord she had not purchased from her po cket, tossed it in to the shopping cart basket , and left th e premises while Hill remained behind. Gonzales testified that she emptied the

c ontents of the purse into the shopping cart basket, among which were unpurchased items she4 observed the two women sec ret in the purse

. Gonzales stated that , at this point, Hill left the premises as well

. Gonzales further stated that the value of the stol en goods was $152.46. Tyler Police Department Detective Wayne Thomas testified that he contacted Appellant
after the incident . During their conversation, a ccording to Thomas, Appellant admitted that she opened packages and hid merchandise in a purse. Th e State introduced a n audio recording of Thomas’s conversation with Appellant, which was played for the jury. Hill, w ho previously pleaded “guilty” to and wa s placed on community supervision for
her role in the theft at issue , testified for the defense. D uring her testimony, Hill claimed sole responsibility for the theft . She further stated that Appellant did not shopl ift any items and only
discovered after the fact that Hill had done so . Lastly, Hill disagreed that the store’s security footage depicted anything which contradicted her testimony.
Discussion In order to prove that Appellant was “guilty” of theft, the S tate was required to
demonstrate that she unlawfully appropriated the property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property without the owner’s effective consent

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03(a) , (b) (West 2019 ). An “owner” is a person who “h as title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than the acto r.”
Id. § 1.07(a)(35) (West 2021 ). “Possession” is defined as “actual care, custody, control, or

manag ement.” Id. § 1.07(a)(39) (West 2021 )

. In her brief, Appellant confines her in sufficiency argument to Hill’s testimony that she
alone committed the cr ime and Appellant had no knowledge of her actions. But in so doing, Appellant ignores Gonzales’s testimony, the vide o surveillance footage, and her admission to
Thomas

. To be succinct, the evidence overw helmingly supports that Appellant took
merchandise belonging to Wal

- Mart, secreted that merchandise in a purse or on her person , failed to pay for such merchandise, and attempted to leave the store with the merchandise and, thus, satisfies the elements of theft. See id

. § 31.03(a) , (b)

. Moreover, the jur y wa s free to believe all or any part of Gonzales’s and Thomas’s testimonies and disbelieve all or any part of
Hill’s testimony. See Lee , 176 S.W.3d at 458

. Therefore, b ecause the jury reasonably could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant commit ted theft, we hold that the evidence is legally
sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment . Appellant’s sole i ssue is overruled.5 D ISPOSITION Having overruled Appellant’s so le issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice

Opinion delivered June 1 6 , 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoy le, J., and Neeley, J

.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 1 6 , 2022

NO. 12

- 21

- 00156

- CR

CINDA MARIE WOFFORD , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appel le e

Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 0997

- 20 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appella te record and brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in t he judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJU DGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed , and th at this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
James T. Worthen , Chief Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.