In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-12-00385-CR 

AARON MICHAEL MORALES, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 133,742-1, Honorable W. F. (Corky) Roberts, Presiding 

 

June 19, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Aaron Michael Morales appeals from his jury conviction of theft of 

property worth at least $50 but less than $500.1 He was sentenced by the court to 180 

days confinement in the Potter County Detention Center and a $2000 fine. Through 

one issue, appellant contends the evidence to support his conviction was insufficient. 

We will affirm. 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West 2012). This is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by 

up to 180 days of confinement and a fine not to exceed $2000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.22 (West 

2012).
2

Background

Appellant was charged by information with appropriating water meter covers 

without the consent of their owner, the superintendent of the City of Amarillo water and

sewer department.

A witness testified she was driving on Northeast 20th Street in Amarillo, on an 

afternoon in March 2012. She noticed a truck in an alley. She watched as two males 

picked up water meter covers, also referred to at trial as “meter lids,” and put them into 

the back of the truck. The males eventually entered the truck, one jumping into the 

back and the other entering the truck’s passenger side. The witness assumed there 

was a third person driving the truck. Concluding the men were stealing the covers, she 

called 911. She followed the truck to a metal recycling business and waited for officers 

to arrive. An Amarillo police officer shortly arrived, finding appellant, along with his 

mother and younger brother, present in the truck that the witness had followed. 

Appellant was in the front passenger seat of the truck. The officer spoke with the driver, 

appellant’s mother, and eventually obtained her consent to search the truck. The truck 

bed contained several “junk” metal items, including a clothes washer and dryer. When 

the officer opened the dryer door, he discovered several water meter covers inside. 

Other testimony established there was a total of fourteen covers in the truck. 

Bruce Walterscheid is the superintendent of the City of Amarillo’s water and

sewer department. He testified his office personnel notified him that afternoon that water 

meter covers had been taken from an alley and Amarillo police were investigating. He 

further testified appellant did not have permission to take the City’s water meter covers. 
3

Walterscheid and his assistant went to the recycling business, took possession of the 

covers and had them replaced in the alley in which the witness had seen the truck. 

Walterscheid’s testimony valued the fourteen covers at $18.22 each, for a total of 

approximately $252.00. Each meter lid is ten inches in diameter and an inch thick and 

weighs about seventeen-and-a-half pounds. The covers each bore a stamp reading 

“City of Amarillo water meter.” Photographs of the covers were introduced. Appellant 

did not testify.

The jury found appellant guilty as charged in the information2and the court 

assessed punishment as noted. This appeal followed.

Analysis

Through his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in 

denying his motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case. He specifically 

argues the evidence is insufficient to “support the value of the alleged stolen property.”

A complaint of the failure to grant a motion for directed verdict is a challenge to 

the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2003); Barnes v. State, 248 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2007). In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we 

consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine 

whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a 

 

2

Included in the court’s charge to the jury was an instruction on the lesser-included offense of the 

Class C misdemeanor, theft in the amount of $50 or less. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(1)(A) (West 

2012).
4

reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 

2d 560 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ross v. 

State, 133 S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Circumstantial evidence can be as 

probative as direct evidence, Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991), and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. 

State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The same standard is used to review 

the sufficiency of direct and circumstantial evidence. Geesa, 820 S.W.2d at 159-61. 

Appellant committed theft if he unlawfully appropriated property with the intent to 

deprive the owner of property. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a) (West 2012). To 

appropriate means "to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than 

real property." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.01(4)(B) (West 2012). The appropriation was 

unlawful if it was without the effective consent of the owner. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

31.03(b) (West 2012). The theft offense was a class B misdemeanor if the value of the 

property exceeded $50.00 but was less than $500.00. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

31.03(e)(2)(A)(i) (West 2012).

As noted, appellant’s issue focuses on the evidence of the value of the covers. 

His argument acknowledges that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding he 

appropriated two of the covers, those the witness said she saw the men load in the 

truck. But, he asserts, the evidence is insufficient to connect him with the appropriation 

of the remaining twelve covers found in the clothes dryer. Because the covers were 

valued at $18.22 each, he argues the evidence was not sufficient to support a 

conviction for a Class B misdemeanor because it established only his theft of property 

worth $36.44 (the value of two covers), not $252 (the value of all fourteen covers).
5

In his brief appellant contends, “[i]t is a reasonable hypothesis that appellant got 

into the truck in the alley when the witness had lost sight of the vehicle and had no 

knowledge of the stolen water meter covers in the closed clothes dryer in the bed of the 

truck. Alternatively, it is a reasonable hypothesis that appellant only appropriated the 

two water meter covers that the witness testified that she saw taken.” We need not 

consider whether appellant is correct that either of those hypotheses is a reasonable 

alternative to his guilt of the Class B offense, because the State was not required to 

produce evidence excluding every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. The 

“outstanding reasonable hypothesis of innocence” construct as a method of appellate 

review for evidentiary sufficiency is no longer applied in Texas criminal cases. 

Manivanh v. State, 334 S.W.3d 23, 28 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref'd) (citing 

Geesa, 820 S.W.2d at 160-61).

Applying the required standard of review, we instead determine whether, 

considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and reasonable 

inferences to be drawn from that evidence, the jury was rationally justified in finding 

appellant guilty of the Class B offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d 

at 899. The issue boils down to an inquiry whether the jury rationally could infer that 

appellant had sufficient involvement with the appropriation of the twelve covers found in 

the dryer to support his guilt of the greater Class B offense. An inference is a 

conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence 

from them. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 16.3 All fourteen meter covers were taken from the 

 

3 Drawing an inference is to be distinguished from speculation, which “is mere theorizing or 

guessing about the possible meaning of facts and evidence presented. A conclusion reached by 
6

same alley, and were in the bed of the truck when appellant, his mother and brother 

arrived at the metal recycling business. The witness told the jury she watched as the 

two males loaded two of the covers into the truck, and followed them to the metal 

recycling business. Appellant having acknowledged the jury’s rational conclusion that 

he appropriated those two covers, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the jury’s verdict, we find the jury rationally could have deduced that the theft of the 

other twelve covers found inside the dryer in the vehicle occurred also at the same time. 

The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude appellant committed 

theft of property in an amount greater than $50.00, but less than $500.00. We resolve 

appellant’s sole issue against him and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish. 

 

 

speculation may not be completely unreasonable, but it is not sufficiently based on facts or evidence to 

support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 16.