NO. 07-08 -003 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 23 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ GERALD BR OW N, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 2 n d DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DE NT ON COU NT Y; NO. F-2007 -044 8-D; HON. BRUCE M CFARLING, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Gerald Brow n ap pea ls his conviction for the f t and cont end s, throu gh three issue s, that the S tate pr esent ed l eg all y and factual ly

insuffici ent ev ide nce to prov e he commit ted theft of proper

ty v alu ed at$1500 or

more butunder

$20, 000. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. The r ecord contai ns ev ide nce il lus trati ng thatw hil e appel lan t w as in pr is on, a Ja mes Jones had sto len the w heel s o ff appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e. Jones l ater ag re ed to “ hook [appel lan t] up” w it h repl acement s i f appell ant d ro v e hi m from Ok lah oma to Lew is v il le,2

Tex as, to “reposs ess ” some r ims

. Appel lan t admit ted t hat h e w as “s treet s mart ,” tes ti fied that he w as “n ot g oin g to act l ik e [he ] di dn’ t k now ” w hat J ones w as g oin g to do, t hat h e “had a sense of

w hathe’s [ i. e. Jo nes w as] tal ki ng about, ” that he “ did n’tca re ” w hether the story w a s t ru e , a n d agreed to th e prop osal. So , one night the two entere d ap pellan t’s C ad i l l ac , drov e to Te x as , an d ev en tu al l y s to pp ed at an ap ar tm en t c om pl ex arou nd 4 a. m. Sev eral men li fted a par ti cul ar SU V (l ocat ed in the par ki ng lot ) off the g ro und, pla ced ci nder blo ck s u nder

i t, low er ed it on the ci nder blo ck s, re mov ed the lug nuts and ri m cov ers from the v ehicle’s four w hee ls, placed t w o w hee ls in a truck th at arriv ed wi th ot her com pat riots,
a n d p la ce d th e rim co vers a n d lu g n u ts in ap p e lla n t’ s ca r be fo re be in g sp o tt e d an d f le e in g. Soo n after f leeing, ap pellan t and Jone s w ere a rr e s t e d

. W hile sitting in the po lice sq uad c ar

appel lan t c all ed a f e m a le a nd to ld her that“ w e had all the ri ms off,” t hat “s omebody

se en us tr

y ing to tak e thes e ri ms,” and that “w e g ot aw ay and w er e al re ady

on the highw ay.” Th ese co mm ent s w ere recorde d by the video cam era w ithin th e squad car. Testi mony

also dis cl osed thatthe v alu e of the four w heel s a nd r ims approx imat ed $220 0
an d th att he o w ne r of th e w he el s an d SU V ha d no t g i v en an y on e pe r mi s s i on to ta k e th em . Fi nal ly , upon bei ng charg ed, w hic h c harg e i ncl uded a par ty ch arg e, t he j ur

y found appel lan t g uil ty of theft of proper

ty eq ual to or

g re ater than $1500 but l ess that$20, 000. The foreg oin g ev ide nce is enoug h to per mit a rati onal j ur y t o concl ude, bey ond
reaso nab le dou bt, th at ap pellan t w as at th e v eryleast a party to t he th ef t. And , tha t only tw o of the four w heel s w er e ac tual ly tak en befor e bei ng s p o tt e d does not neg ate t hat. Indeed, thou g h tw o w heel s w er e left behi nd, appel lan t himsel f sai d that th ey “ had al l the rims of f .” Addition ally , the four rim covers once on t he w hee ls h ad bee n rem oved. Couple thi s w it h the ev ide nce il lus trati ng thatthe SU V had been p laced o n c ind er bl ock s t o3

fa c il it a t e t h e t h e f

t , o n e c a n n o tb u tco n c lu d e t h a ta p p e ll a n t(a tt h e ve ry l e a s ta s a p a rt y) appropr iat ed or other

w is e ex er ci sed cont ro l ov er all four w heel s, ti re s, and ri ms. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 31.01( 4) (V er non Supp. 2008) (d efini ng “a ppropr iat e” as, among othe r thi ng s, “t o ac q uire or

othe rw is e ex er ci se cont ro l ov er proper ty ”) ; T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §31.03( a) ( sta ti ng thatone commi ts theft w hen he u nla wfully appropr iat es proper

ty w it h int ent t o depr iv e the ow ner of it ). In sum , the ev iden ce w as bo th legally and factu ally

suf f icient to supp ort the jury ’s
v erdic t. T he latt er

w as not manifestl y

unjust , and the tr ial courtacted prope rl y in deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion for d irect ed v erdic t. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Per C ur iam

Do not p ubl is h.