### NUM BER 13-07- 0049 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
ERN EST INE TA M EZW ASHIN GTO N, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 3rd Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez A j ur y found appel la nt E rn est ine TamezW ashi ng ton g uil ty of thi rd -d eg re e felony theft. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 31. 03(a ), (e)( 5) (Vernon 200 3). Th e 93 rd Distri ct Court of Hi dal g o C ounty

se ntenc ed W ashi ng ton to two y ears i n pr is on, s uspen ded and probated the s entenc e ov er fiv e y ears, ass ess ed a fine, and ordered W ashi ng ton t o pay rest it uti on. By si x i ss ues, W ashi ng ton c ontends thatthe ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici entI n t he r ecor d, T exas Com put er i z ed T ax S ervi ce i s r ef er r ed t o i nt er change abl y as T exas 1 C om put er i z ed T ax Ser v i ce an d W esl aco T ax Ser v i ce. Forcl ar i t y ' s sake, t he C our t wi l l r ef ert o t he b usi ness a s T e x a s C o m p u te rize d T a x S e rv i c e o r T C T S th ro u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n
. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1.

T h e re c o rd c o n ta i n s c o n fli c ti n g te s ti m o n y re g a rd in g th e e x a c t d a te o f th e d i s c u s s i o n
. T h e S ta te 2 p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e t h a t t h e d i s c u s s io n to o k p la c e a t K ik e r 's h o m e , a f te r h e r e tu r n e d f r o m th e h o s p ita l. W a s h in g to n te s tif ie d th a t K ik e r m a d e th e o ff e r to h e r o n o n e o fh e rv is its w h ile h e w a s s till in th e h o s p ita l.

O t herf a c t s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n t e n t a n d t o n e o ft h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a r e a l s o i n d i s p u t e
. W a s h i n g t on cont ends t hat , i n t he d i scussi on, Ki k eroff er ed her fo r t y - ni ne per cent owner shi p oft he b usi ness i n exch ange f orherpr om i se t o st ay wi t h T C T S; W ashi ngt on cl ai m s she accept ed on the spo t and t ender ed h er consi der at i on b y r em ai ni ng e m pl oy ed wi t h T C T S. Ki k ercont ends, howev er , t hat he di d no t i nt end t o con v ey owner shi p t o W ashi ngt on a t t he t i m e of t he d i scussi on; Ki k ercl ai m s t hat hi s off ert o her w as i nt ended t o be fo r th e fu tu re
. 2 to prov e, be y ond a re asona ble doubt, that she poss ess ed th e req uis it e c ri minal i ntentto depr iv e and decei v e and that there w as per manent d epr iv ati on or l oss of a major

por ti on of e nj oy me nto r

v al ue
. W e affi r m. BACKG ROUND W ashi ng ton w as employ ed by Tex as Comput er iz ed Tax Ser v ic e ( TCTS) , a li mite d 1 li abi li ty co rp orati on, i n W esl aco, Tex as, from D ecember 1993 un ti l her empl oy ment w as ter minat ed on Aug ust2, 2004. James Ki ker , w ho, a lon g w it h hi s w ife, ow ned TC TS, l iv ed in Co rp us Chr is ti , Texa s and rel ied on W ashi ng ton to ov ersee the day -t o- day operati ons of the bus ine ss
. On M arch 12, 2 004, Ki ker su ffered an sev ere hear t attac k. Ki ker

sp ent thi rty day s i n the hos pit al, after w hic h ti me he w as confine d to his r e cli n e r at ho me for
nea rly six w eeks. Af t e r t h e h e a rta t t a c k , W a s h in gt o n d ro ve f ro m W e s la c o t o Co rp u s Ch ri s t i e ve ry two to t hree w eeks to v is itKi ker

. At s ome poi nt du ri ng hi s co n vale scence, Ki ker had a discussion w ith W ashin gton ab outtransferring partia l c or po rate ownership of TCT S to he r. 2 No paper

w or k w as ev er

co mplet ed reg ardin g any transfer of ow nershi p. In Ap ril 2004, after

her di sc uss ion w it h Ki ker reg ardin g the all eg ed transfer of
ow nershi p, W ashi ng ton we n t to Ed Pay ne M otors i n W esl aco, Tex as and i nit iat ed negotia tions for the p urcha se of a Dodge Durango. Her sales represe nta tiv e w as ArturoW ashi ngt on co nt end s that Agui r r e en cour aged hert o pu r chase t he Dur ango as a busi ness 3 t r ansact i on a nd i ndi cat ed t hat i t was acce pt abl e f orW ashi ngt on t o s i gn K i k er' s nam e t o t he p ur chase docum ent s. Agui r r e de ni es t hat he encour aged W ashi ngt on o r t ol d he r t hat she coul d si gn f or Ki k er , i nst ead t est i fy i ng t hat , af t erW ashi ngt on had been deni ed f i nanci ng f ora per sonal pur chase, she sugge st ed t hat t hey fin a n c e th e D u ra n g o a s a b u s i n e s s p u rc h a s e b e c a u s e s h e w a s a p a rti a l o w n e r o f T C T S

. 3 Aguirre. The facts su rr o u n d in g the negotiat ion an d eventu al sale of the Duran go are dis puted by

the par ti es, but iti s u ncont ro v erted t hat W ashi ng ton represent ed hersel f as 3 a co-owner of

TCT S and that the Durango w as eventua lly f inan ced as a busine ss purcha se und er Kiker's nam e. T o facilitate the cred it check, W ashin gton supp lied Ed Pay ne Moto rs
w it h Ki ker's dr iv er 's l ic ense num ber , s oci al sec ur ity number , and al l other i nformati on
nece ssaryt o com plete the che ck. All docum ent s inciden t to the sale–-th e pu rchase order, title ap plication , proof

of in s u rance , custo me r claim form, odo me ter disclosure –-w ere pla ced in an env elo pe and g iv en to W ashi ng ton s o s he c oul d obt ain Ki ker's si g nature on each document

. W ashi ng ton e v ent u a lly retur ned t he s ig ned doc uments to Ed Pa y ne Motors. W ashin gton ad mits th at she forged Kiker's sig nat ure on the do cum ent s. W ashi ng ton took poss ess ion of the D urang o and put o v er 13,0 00 mi les on t he
v ehi cl e betw een Apr il 26 and Jul y 20, 2004. On Jul y 20, 2004, W ashi ng ton to wed the Durango to Ed P ayne Motors beca use of m echa nical troub les and n ever retu rned t o pick itup. W ashi ng ton h ad purchas ed th e v ehi cl e for $38,549 .00; after bei ng re turned b y W ashi ng ton, Ed Pa y ne M otors resol d the D urang o for $24,900 .00. Someti me i n J uly

2004, Ki ker

recei v ed a p hone c all from t he C hr y sl er F ina nci al Corporat ion inquiring abo ut de linquent p aymen ts on th e Durango. T his w as the f irst notice Ki ker recei v ed th at t he D urang o had been fina nced under hi s n ame. On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , K i k e r

fi l e d a re p o rtw i t h t h e W e s l a c o p o l i c e d e p a rt me nt compl ain ing thatW ashi ng ton h ad financ ed a car under hi s n ame w it hout his per mis si on. W ashin gton w as arrested on Janua ry 18, 200 5, and on Decem ber 15, 200 5, th e grand jury ind icted h er

for t hird- deg re e felony theft, charg ing thatW ashi ng ton:4

on or about the 26th dayof Apri l A.D ., 2004 .

. . i n H ida lg o C ounty , Tex as, di d the n and there u nlawfu lly

app ropriate , by

a c q ui r i ng and othe rw ise exercisi ng control over, proper ty , t o- w it : one D odg e motor v ehi cl e, of the va lue of $20,000.00 or

m ore but le s s t h a n $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 , f ro m A rt u ro A gu ir re , t h e o wn e r t h e re o f , wit h o u tt h e e f fe c t ive cons ent o f the ow ner , and w it h i ntentto depr iv e the ow ner of the p ro per

ty ; and [W ashi ng ton] act ed w it h the i ntentto depr iv e s aid ow ner o f said proper

ty by w it hhol din g from s aid ow ner sai d proper ty per manentl y and for s o extended a per iod of time that a major por ti on of t he v alu e and enj oy ment of sa id proper ty w as los t t o sai d ow ner , and w it hout the effect iv e c onsen t of sa id ow ner , i n tha t t his co nsentw as ind uced by

decepti on, to w it : [W ashi ng ton] created and c onfir med, by w ords and cond uct, a false imp ression of fact, notb elieving it to be true, thatw as likely to af fect and did af

fect th e judgme nt of

such owner. W ashi ng ton p lea ded notg uil ty to the c harg e, and a jur y tri al w as held on Jul y

19- 21, 2 0 0 6

. T h e ju ry re t u rn e d a gu il t y ve rd ic t , a n d t h e t ri a l c o u rtse n t e n c e d W a s h in gt o n t o two y ears i n pr is on, s uspen ded and probated the s entenc e ov er fiv e y ears, a ss e ss ed a $1,500. 00 fine, and ordered W ashi ng ton t o pay $7,5 00.00 in re st it uti on. This appeal
ensue d. STAND AR D OF R EVIE W & A PPLIC ABLE LAW In con duct ing a leg al suf f icie ncy rev iew , w e v iew the evidence in the light most fav orabl e to the v erdict to determi ne w hether a ra ti onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e found the
ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a reason abl e doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8
- 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )

. We do notreev alu ate t he w eig ht an d cred ibi li ty of the ev ide nce, and w e do not s ubst it ute o ur
ow n j udg ment for the t ri er of fact. K

i n g v. State , 2 9 S. W .3d 5 56, 5 62 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ( en banc ); Beck

hamv. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 1 48, 151 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2000, pet. re f'd). I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. Beck ham , 29 S. W .3d a t 151

.5

In a factual suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew all of t he ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht i n order to de term ine w het her a jury w as ration al ly ju s t if ie d in f inding guilt bey ond a reason able doubt. W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 6). Th e evidence is factual ly

i nsuffici ent i f: ( 1) i t i s s o w eak that iti s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or (2) the jury 's v erdict is again s t the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the available
ev ide nce. Id

. T o rev erse a j ur y 's v erdict as bei ng su ppor ted b y factual ly

i nsuffici ent
ev ide nce, we m u st b e a ble to say w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record tha t t he g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y 's v erdict. Id . at417. The ju ry i s t he s ole j udg e of the facts, the credi bil ity of t he w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9)

. And "[a ]ltho ugh aut horized t o disagree w ith the ju ry 's d ete rmina tion even if p roba tiv e evidence exists w hich sup ports th e v erdict, a review ing court mustg iv e du e de feren ce t o t h e fact finder 's dete rmi nati ons
. . . and w il l re v erse the factf ind er 's determi nati on onl y to ar re st the
occ ur re nce of a manifest inj ust ic e." Swear ing en v . St ate , 10 1 S. W .3 d 89 , 97 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2003)

. Both leg al and factual suffici ency are measured by the ele ments of t he offense as defined bya hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1 9 9 7 ). Under a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, a person commi ts the offense of third- deg re e felony theft i f she "unl awf u lly a p p ro pr iat es proper ty w it h i ntentto dep riv e the o w ner of

t he prop erty" a nd "th e v alue o f t he prop erty stolen is $20 ,00 0 or mo re but l ess than $100, 000 .

. . . " T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 31.03( a) , ( e) (5 ); see Ki ng v . St ate , 174 S.W .3d 7 96, 8 09 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, pet. ref'd)

. Here, t he

" [ a ] p p ro p ri a t io n o f

p ro p e rt y [wo u ld b e ] u n la wf u l i f

. . . itis wit h o u tt h e o wn e r' s e f fe c t iveW ashi ngt on' s l egal suff i ci encychal l enges (h er s econd, t hi r d, f i f t h, and si xt h i ssues) st at e t hat 4 W ashi ngt on' s r i ght s und erar t i cl e I , sect i ons t hi r t een and ni net een oft he T exas Con s t i t ut i on a nd t he F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t o fth e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s t i t u t i o n w e r e v io la te d b e c a u s e o fth e u s e o fle g a lly i n s u ff i c i e n t e v i d e n c e
. See U. S. C ON ST . a m e n d . X IV , § 1 ; T EX
. C ON ST
. ar t

. I , §§ 13, 19. However , t he T exas C on s t i t uti on an d F ou rt ee nth A m en dm en t do no t cre ate s ep ara t e a nd di s t i nc t l eg al su ffi c i en c y i s s ue s
. R athe r, l egal suff i ci ency r ev i ew was bor n out of due pr ocess consi der at i ons, and by nam i ng t he U ni t ed S t ates and T exas d ue pr ocess cl auses i n heri ssues, we con cl ude t hat W ashi ngt on h as do ne n o m or e t han ci t e t he l egal b a c k g ro u n d o f th e e v i d e n ti a ry s u ff i c i e n c y p rin c i p l e
. See Jackson , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 4 , 3 1 7 -1 9 ; W atson , 204 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 2 ; Sw ear ingen , 101 S. W

. 3d a t 95. Because t he sa m e l aw app l i es t o al l f ourl egal suff i ci ency i ssues, we wi l l anal y z e W ashi ngt on' s secon d an d t hi r d i ssues a s one i ssue a nd f i f t h an d si xt h i ssues a s one i s s u e
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1.
6 cons ent." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 31.03( b) (1 ). "The int ent to depr iv e is deter mined from the words and acts of the [d efendant]." Ki ng , 1 7 4 S. W

. 3 d a t8 1 0 (cit in g Gr if fi n v . St ate , 614 S. W .2d 1 55, 1 59 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) ). "Appropr iat e" i s d efined as "ac q uir [i ng ] or othe rw is e ex erci s[i ng ] c ontrol ov er p ro p e rt y o t h e r t h a n re a l p ro p e rty ." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 31. 01(4 )(B) (Verno n 20 03).

" De p rive m e a n s . . . t o w it h h o ld pro p e rt y f ro m th e owne r pe rm a n e n tl y or fo r so lo n g a per iod of ti me thata maj or por ti on of the v alu e or

enj oy ment of the proper ty i s l ostto the
ow ner
. . . ." Id . at§ 31.0 1 (2 )(A)

. The "ow ner " of the p ro per ty i s t he person w it h the super ior r ig ht t o pos ses si on over the defendant; "'[ p]os ses si on' means act ual ca re , cus tody , c ontrol, or

manag ement." Id . at§§ 1 .07( a) (3 5) (A ), ( a) (3 9) ( Ver non 200 3)

. The
o w n e r ' s c o n s e n ti s n o te ffe c t i v e i f i ti s " i n d u c e d b y d e c e p ti on . . . ." Id . at § 31 .01 (3)(A). "Dec epti on" is defined as "creati ng or confir ming by w ords or

co nducta fals e i mpres si on of l a w o r fa c tt h a ti s l i k e l y

t o a ffe c tt h e j u d g me n to f a n o t h e r
. . . a n d t h a tt h e [ d e fendant ] does not b eli ev e i s t ru e. Id . at§ 31 .01( 1) (A ). DI SC US SION In si x i s s u e s , W a s h i n g t o n c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l y and factu ally insuf f icient to prove her g uilt y of third-degree felon y

theft beyond a reason able doubt. W ashi ng ton' s first, se cond, and thi rd is sues chal len g e the ev ide nce re g ardin g her

4W a s h in g to n c la im s w e m u s t a d d r e s s w h e th e r th is c a s e is a c tu a lly c iv il, a s o p p o s e d to c r im in a l, in 5 nat ur e as a t hr eshol d i ssue. W e di sagr ee. I t i s undou bt edl y i m por t ant t hat a cou r t di st i ngui sh be t ween case s a ris i n g o u t o f c rim i n a l a c ti v i ty a n d c a s e s a ris i n g o u t o f m e re c o n tra c tu a l d i s p u te s
. S e e C h ris te n s e n v . S ta te , 2 4 0 S .W .3 d 2 5 , 3 2 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f'd ); s e e a ls o R e e dv . S ta te , No

. 1 3
- 0 5
- 3 6 4
- CR, 2008 T ex. App. LEX I S 2188, at * 5- 6 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i M ar
. 27, 2008, no pet

. )

. I ndeed , a char ge o f t heft m ade i n con nect i on wi t h a cont r act r equi r es pr oofof m or e t han an i nt ent t o de pr i ve t he o w ne r and ap pro pri ati on of t he pro pe rty. S e e J a c o b s v . S ta te , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.). H o w e v e r, C hr ist ensen , Jacobs , and R eed a ll in v o lv e d a c o n t r a c t u a l d is p u te
- tu r n e d
- c r im e b e tw e e n th e d e fe n d a n t a n d vic ti m a l l e g e d i n th e i n d i c tm e n t. See C hr ist ensen , 2 4 0 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 -3 4 ; Jacobs , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 7 -2 8 ; R eed , 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S 2188, at * 1- 2. I n t hi s case, t he t heft char ges a gai nst W a s h i n g to n d o n o t a ris e fro m a c o n tra c t b e tw e e n A g u i rr e , t h e vic ti m , a n d W a s h i n g to n , t h e d e fe n d a n t. R a th e r, t he co nt r act at i ssue i s t he al l eged t r ansf erof owner shi p of

T C T S f r om Ki k ert o W ashi ngt on. Her e, whet her ornot a cont r act was f or m ed b et ween Ki k erand W ashi ng t on a nd t he p ar t i es' bel i ef s r egar di ng co nt r act f o r m a tio n a r e m e r e ly e v id e n c e o fW a s h in g to n 's in te n t to d e p r iv e a n d d e c e iv e A g u ir r e . W e , t h e r e f o r e , o v e r r u le W a s h i n g to n 's s e c o n d a n d th i rd i s s u e s to th e e x te n t t h e y i n v o l v e h e r c l a i m th a t w e m u s t m a k e a th re s h o l d det er m i nat i on o n t he cr i m i nal v er sus ci v i l que st i on.
7 re q uis it e c ri minal i ntentto depr iv e and decei v e. W ashi ng ton' s four th, fifth, and si xth i ss ues chal len g e the ev ide nce of permanen t dep ri v ati on and major loss of enjoy ment and v alu e. A. Cr imi nal Int ent a nd D ecept ion Fi rs t, W ashi ng ton c ontends he r gui lty v erdict w as suppo rt ed by both l eg all y

and factual ly ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce becau se she bel iev ed she w as par t- ow ner of

T e xas Comput er iz ed T a x S e rvice and c oul d, t herefore, bin d the bus ine ss to a c ontract

. W ashi ng ton c hal len g es the s uff ic ien cy of the S tate' s evide n ce to prov e, be y ond a
re asona ble doubt , W ashi ng ton' s ( 1) cr imi nal i ntent to depr iv e Agui rre of

the Durang o, an d (2 ) decep ti on, s peci fical ly , t hat s he di d not belie v e the fals e fact that she w as par t- ow ner of TCTS, a factthataffect ed Ag uir re 's j u d gm e n t in sel li ng her the Durang o. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 31.01( 1) (A ), 31.0 3( a)

. 1. Legal suf

f iciency 5 It is undisp ute d tha t W ashin gton signed Kike r' s n am e to th e Durango pu rchase document s she re tur ned to Ed Pay ne Mo tors and that she had personal , d e ta iled knowledge of Kiker's w eake ned and f ragil e ph y sical cond ition. T he u ndisp ute d evidence8

als o s how s t hat n o c or porate p aper w or k h ad been co m p let ed reg ardin g the all eg ed transfer of TCTS ow nershi p to W ashi ng ton. Fina ll y , i t i s u ndi sput ed th at W ashi ng ton h as
ov er a de cade of ex per ien ce in the t ax preparati on bus ine ss and, up u nti l the time he lea rn ed of the forg er ies , Kike r consi dered W ashi ng ton a l oy al, tr ustw orthy , and know led g eabl e empl oy ee. Ki ker tes ti fie d emphatic all y

that , al thoug h he had made the o ffer of forty -n ine percentow nershi p to W ashi ng ton, he had no presenti ntentto conv ey ow nershi p to her

at the t ime of the offer; K ik er i n sis te d thathe a nd hi s w ife w ere the so le ow ners o f TCTS. There w as als o tes ti mony by an i nv est ig ati ng pol ic e off ic er thatKi ker

had infor med hi m that t h e o wn e rs h ip o f

fe r wa s m e re ly a " t h o u gh t " in K ik e r' s m in d a n d t h a tK ik e r d id n o tb e li e ve he had g iv en par

ti al ow nershi p of TCTS to W ashi ng ton. Kiker f urthe r testif ied th at W ashin gton ne v er informe d him tha t she bought a v ehicle at E d Pay ne M otors a s a busine ss purch ase. Ki ker st ated in his tes ti mony that , w hen he firs t s aw W ashi ng ton w it h the D urang o, W ash in gto n 's ex press ion w as that of a "deer caught in th e he adlights." Kiker testif ied t h a t , w hen W ashin gton f inally cam e to te ll him about the D urang o, s he tr ied to conv inc e hi m thathe h ad aut hor iz ed th e purchas e. Ag uir re tes ti fied th at W ashi ng ton h ad done hi s t axes in t he pas t and thathe
cons ide re d TCTS a reputabl e bus ine ss
. W ashingt o n ac know led g ed th at s he had prev iou sl y

done busi ness w it h Ag uir re ; s he had prepared hi s tax es and had boug ht a car from hi m in 2001. Ag uir re tes ti fied th at i t w as W ashi ng ton's id e a t o buy the Durang o as a bus ine ss purchas e after W ashi ng ton w as deni ed financ ing for a personal purchas e. An inv e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e o ffi c e r fu rt h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a t A g u i r re t o l d h i m t h a t , a l t h o u g h E d Pay ne9

Mo tors offered to send the purchas e document s direct ly to Ki ker for his sign ature, W ashi ng ton i nsi ste d on tak ing the paper w or k h ersel f. On ap peal , W ashi ng ton c laims there was leg all y i nsuffici ent e v ide nce of (1) her
cr imi nal i ntentto depr iv e Ag uir re of the Durang o, and (2) decepti on, s peci fical ly , t hat s he did not bel iev e the fals e fact that she w as par t- ow ner of TCTS her

non- bel ief, a fact th at af fecte d Aguirre's judgmen t in selling her the Durango. How ever, base d on the evidence present ed attr ial , a ra ti onal j ur y co uld hav e c oncl uded t hat: W ashi ng ton a dmitted t o forging Kiker's signature; W ashin gton w as w ithou t aut hority to make a busine ss purcha se becau se she w as not part ial ow ner of T CTS; W ashi ng ton did not beli ev e she w as a par ti al
ow ner of TCTS bec ause she w as an ex per ien ced busi ness person w ho k new thatno
cor porate p aper

w or k h ad ev er

been compl eted to effectuate the transfer of o wne rsh ip; W ashi ng ton d id not b eli eve sh e wa s a par ti al ow ner

of TCTS bec ause she act ed suspiciou sly w hen Kiker discovered the car, beca use sh e tried to pressure Kike r to adm it he had author iz ed th e purchas e w hen s he k new he w as in poor heal th, and bec ause she ins is ted o n tak ing the purchas e doc uments herse lf rather than allow ing the deal ershi p to send them directly to Kiker for his signature; W ashin gton misrep resen ted her ow nersh ip of TCTS to A g uir re after sh e had been de nie d financ ing for a personal purchas e; an d W ashi ng ton k new

Ag uir re w oul d ac cepther fals e represent ati on bec ause Ag uir re bel iev ed TCTS w as a reputabl e bus ine ss and had don e bus ine ss w it h W ashi ng ton i n the pas t. The "j ur y may i nfer i ntentfrom any

facts w hic h ten d to prov e its e xist ence
. . . ." Ki ng , 174 S.W .3d a t 811

. And w e l ook to "ev ents oc cur ri ng before, dur ing and a fte r the commi ss ion of the o ffense and may rely on a cti ons o f

t he defendant w hic h s how an understa ndi ng and common de si g n to do th e prohi bit ed act." Guev ar a v . St ate , 15210

S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 , 4 9 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 4 ). W e co n c lu d e t h a tt h e " c o m b in e d a n d cu m u la t ive force" of the abov e ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o per mit the jur y to reach a rati onal dec is ion

. See K ing , 174 S.W .3d a t 811

. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the light m o st f a vorabl e to conviction, w e ho ld tha t the re w as legally suf f icient evidence to prove b eyond a reaso nab le dou bt th at W ashin gton ha d the requisite intentto dep riv e Aguirre of t he Durango an d did not b eli ev e the fals e fact of her co- ow nershi p of TCTS. See Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13. W ashi ng ton' s s econd and thi rd i ss ues are ov er ru led

. 2. Factu al suf

f iciency In ou r factual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e v iew

the ev ide nce neutrall y . See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15. So, in additio n to the verdict-favorable evidence on w hich w e relied in
our l eg al suffici ency

anal y si s, w e w il l als o c onsi der ev ide nce fav orabl e to W ashi ng ton. See id

. At t ri al, W ashin gto n produc ed, a s a n ex hib it , her ter minat ion l etter , i n w hic h Ki ker
w it hdrew his offer to g iv e W ashi ng ton forty -n ine percent of TC TS. W ashi ngto n testi fied that, w hen s he purchas ed th e D urang o from A g uir re , s he bel iev ed s he ow ned forty -n ine percentof the busi ness becau se she had per formed th e c onsi derati on of remaini ng as an employ ee of TCTS. W ashi ng ton fur ther tes ti fied that she had alw ay s s ig ned doc uments for Kiker in the pa st and had told Kiker of her in t e n tt o p u rchase a car fo r the bu siness. W ashi ng ton s tated i n her tes ti mony

thatsh e c onti nued t o w or k fo r Ki ke r ev en after he learne d she had forged his sig nat ure. W ashin gton also c la im s t h a tthere were inc onsi ste nci es in Ag uir re 's and Ki ker's tes ti mony , w hic h neg ates thei r credi bil ity ; in fact, she claims tha t Aguirre an d Kiker perjured them selves at trial. W ashin gton argues tha t this
e vid e n c e p ro ve s sh e co u ld n o th a ve h a d t h e r e qu is it e i n t e n tt o d e p ri ve a n d d id n o td e c e ive11

Ag uir re bec ause she bel iev ed th e purchas e of the Durang o w as a busi ness transacti on s he had t he pow er

to author iz e. None the less, even v iew ing the evidence in a ne utral light, w e can notsaythe verdict
w as cl ear ly

w ro ng or mani festl y

unj ust

. See W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414-15 . Th e evidence present ed by

W ashi ng ton w as cont ra dicted by the Stat e's tes ti mony

and ev ide nce. Ki ker
v ehementl y

deni ed c onv ey ing par

ti al ow nershi p to W ashi ng ton a nd s tated thathe n ev er g av e W ashi ng ton p er mis si on t o si g n any doc uments i n hi s n ame. See B eck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151-52 (hol din g that c onfli cts i n tes ti mony "do n ot de stroy

the suffici ency

of the
ev ide nce" and t hat it is the ex cl usi v e duty of t he j ur y to re sol v e c ontradi cti ng ev ide nce and testim ony). W e, f urthe rm o re , r e f u se to con clude thatAguirre an d Kiker provided false tes ti mony
. W it ness es are w ell w it hin bounds to adj ust thei r tes ti mony dur ing q uest ion ing to c lar ify a pr ior answ er ; mere dis crepanc ies i n tes ti mony do n ot amoun t t o per

jur y . See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 37. 02 (Ve rnon 200 3) (stati n g tha t perjury requires a "false sta tement under

oath " made w it h the "i ntentto decei v e") ; T EX
. C OD E C R I M P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.04 ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e j u r y i s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f, a mo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e c re d i b i l it yof
w it ness es)

. W ashi ng ton a ls o c lai ms her co nti nued wor k for

Kiker , af ter his dis cov er

y of the forgeries, proves Kiker continue d to trusther and thatshe ha d no thing to hide

. How ever, based on t his fact a lon e, w e refuse to dist ur b the jury 's ve rd ict; itw as neit her cl ear ly w ro ng
nor m ani festl y

unjust

. See S weari

ngen , 101 S.W .3d at 97 (ruling that "t he review ing court must g iv e due deferenc e to the fact finder 's deter minat ion s conc er nin g th e w e igh t and
credi bil ity

of the e v ide nce")

. There w as ample ev ide nce for the jur y to find thatW ashi ng ton int ended t o depr iv e Ag uir re of the Durang o and did not bel iev e the fals e fact that she w as12

a parti al ow ner

of TCTS, an d w e find no obj ect iv e bas is i n the record to conc lud e other w is e. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5. W ashi ng ton' s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. Per manent D epr iv ati on and Ma jor Los s o f Enjoy ment or

Val ue Seco nd, W ashin gton cha llenges the legal a n d factu al suf f iciency of

the St ate 's
ev ide nce of permanen t dep ri v ati on and major l oss of enj oy ment or

v alu e. W ashi ng ton cont end s her guilty

v erdict w as sup porte d by neither legally nor factu ally

suf f icient evidence to prove beyond a reason able d oub t tha t she perm ane ntly w ithhe ld prope rty f rom Aguirre
or hel d the proper

ty for s o l ong a pe ri od of ti me thata maj or por ti on of the v alu e or enj oy ment of t he proper ty w as los t to Ag uir re
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 31. 01(2 )(A). W ashi ng ton' s mai n arg ument reg ardin g t h is iss ue i s t hat t he St ate p ro duced ins u ffi c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f d e p r i v a t i o n b e c a u s e A g u i r re w a s n o t t h e a c t u a l o w n e r of the Durang o. W ashi ng ton c lai ms that E d Pay ne M otors w as the e nti ty thatsu ffered th e depr iv ati on and that there w as no ev ide nce that Agu irre pe rs onal ly ex per ien ced any depr iv ati on or

l oss
. W ashi ng ton' s a rg ument mi ss es the mar k. For pur poses of theft, the "ow ner " is a person w ho has "a g re ater ri g ht t o pos ses si on [of the s tol en proper

ty] t han t he [d efendant]." See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.0 7( a) (3 5) (A ) (V er non 200 3)

. W hen t he v icti m of a cr ime is a c or porati on, i t i s t he s tandard and bette r pract ic e for the i ndi ctmentto a lle ge speci al ow nershi p i n a n atural person. Sim pson v. State , 648 S.W .2d 1 , 2 (Tex . C ri m. A p p . 198 3) ; see, e.g. , Jack son v. State , 270 S.W .3d 649, 656- 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 08, p et. re f'd); Ray v. Sta te , 106 S.W .3d 299, 301 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2003, no pet .) ; Har ri s v . St ate , 9 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 5 (T e x. Ap p – Ty l e r 1 9 9 7 , p e t

. re f' d )

. A c a r s a l e s ma n , i n p a rt i c u l a r , h a s b e e n h e l d a s the p ro per natural person in w hic h to all eg e s peci al ow nershi p. See Jack son , 270 S.W .3d a t 657

.W as hi ng t on al s o c on t en ds tha t the re w as a fa t al vari an c e i n t he i nd i c t m en t , w hi c h a l l eg ed A gu i rr e 6 as ow ne r, be c au s e t he S t ate d i d n o t p ro ve a ny l os s t o A gu i rr e a t t ri al

. As di s c us s ed ab ove , i t i s stan da rd p l e a d i n g p ra c ti c e to a l l e g e s p e c i a l o w n e rs h i p in a p e rs o n w h e n th e v i c ti m i s a c o rp o ra ti o n
. See Sim pson v. S ta te , 6 4 8 S .W .2 d 1 , 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); H a rr is v . S ta te , 986 S

. W

. 2d 619, 625 (T ex. A pp–T y l er199 7, p e t. re f'd ). T h e s p e c i a l p e rs o n e s s e n ti a l l y s ta n d s i n th e s h o e s o f t h e c o rp o ra ti o n
. S o , a n y l o s s p ro v e n a s to th e c o rp o ra ti o n i s a l s o a l o s s p ro v e n to th e s p e c i a l p e rs o n a l l e g e d i n th e i n d i c tm e n t. S e e , e .g ., R a y v . S ta te , 1 0 6 S .W .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 1 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.). I n Sim pson , t he co ur t hel d t hat t he pr oofwas at v ar i ance wi t h t he i ndi ct m ent beca use, ev en t hough t he i ndi ct m ent al l eged speci al owner shi p i n a per son, t her e was n o t es t i m on y showi ng t hat per son h ad a g re a te r rig h t t o p o s s e s s i o n o f th e s to l e n p ro p e rty. See Sim pson , 64 8 S

. W

. 2d at 2. H ere , by co ntr as t , t he re was t est i m onypr ov i ng t hat Agui r r e ha d a gr eat err i ght t o po s sessi on o ft he Dur ango t han W ashi ngt on. Agui r r e t est i f i ed t hat he had t he ri gh t to tak e t he car s out f ort est dr i v es wi t hout anysupe r v i si on o r speci al per m i ssi on f r om t he deal er shi p; he t est i f i ed t hat t hi s was t he nor m al cour se ofbusi ness f orsal esper sons a t Ed Pay ne M ot or s. W ashi ngt on, howev er , was not al l owed t o t ake ca r s out f or t est dr i v es wi t hout per m i ssi on; r at her , i t was r equi r ed t hat she be accom pani ed at al l t i m es by a sal esper son o r ot herem pl oy ee o fEd Pay ne M ot ors. B ased on t hi s t est i m ony , we con cl ude t hat Agui r r e ha d a gr eat err i ght t o po ssessi on t han W ashi ngt on, and we ov er r ul e W ashi ngt on' s f i f t h and si xt h i ssues i n so f aras t heyr el at e t o he r f at al v ar i ance a rg u m e n t. Even t hough t he St at e was not re qui r ed t o pr ov e t hat W ashi ngt on act ual l y depr i v ed Agui r r e of t he 7 D ur ango, t he St at e was n onet hel ess r equi r ed t o pr ov e t hat W ashi ngt on a ppr opr i at ed t he Dur ango, whi ch re q u i re d a s h o w i n g th a t W a s h i n g to n "a c q u i re [d ] o r o th e rw i s e e x e rc i s e [d ] c o n tro l o v e r [th e ] p ro p e rty. " See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 31. 01( 4) ( B)

. However , W ashi ngt on d oes n ot chal l enge whet hert he St at e pr ov ed t he el em ent of

app r opr i at i on so we ne ed n ot add r ess i t her e. 13 Here, A g uir re , as a sal esman for Ed Pay ne Mo tors, had a g re ater ri g ht to poss ess ion of the Durang o than W ashi ng ton a nd w as, therefore, an appropr iat e person to be named a s
v icti m in the ind ictment. See id

. 6 Con cl udi ng that Ag uir re w as the proper par ty to be all eg ed as v icti m, we pr oceed t o W a s h i n g t o n ' s a rg u m e n tt h a tt h e S t a t e p ro d u c e d in s u f f ic ie n te vid e n c e t o p ro ve p e rm a n e n t d e p ri va t io n o r a m ajo r lo s s o f a p o rt io n o f va lu e o r e n jo ym e n to f

t h e p ro p e rt y. At the outse t, w e mu st not e tha t the State w as not required to prov e actu al dep riv ation in
or de r t o p ro v e W a s h i n g t o n ' s i n t e n tt o d e p r i v e A g u i r re ; i n o t h e r w o rd s , t h e d e p ri v ati on ele ment nec ess ary t o p ro ve the o ffense of theft req uires onl y an i ntentto depr iv e, no t act ual depr iv ati on. Ro w la n d v. Sta te , 744 S.W .2d 6 10, 6 12 ( Tex . 198 8) ( en banc ). As 7 prev iou sl y

di sc uss ed, t he St ate a dduce d bot h l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to prov e, be y ond a re asona ble doubt , W ashi ng ton' s i ntentto depr iv e Ag uir re of the D urang o.14

Regardless, w e f ind th e followi ng ev iden ce in the record supp orting a f inding of loss:
an ex hib itdemons trati n g t h a t the o ri g ina l sal e pr ic e of the Durang o w as $38,549 .00; tes ti mony

thatthe Durang o w as re sol d for $24,900 .00 w hen W a shi ng ton retur ned t he
v ehi cl e to Ed Pa y ne M otors a fter o nly three month s u se; testim o n y t hat t he Durang o — p u rch ased new only three mo nth s earlier—w as return ed to Ed Payne Moto rs in a s tate of ser iou s d is re pai r; tes ti mony thatthe differenc e betw een t he or ig ina l pr ic e and
re -s ale pr ic e w as ro ug hly $12, 000.00; tes ti mony that , after

su btract ing the add- ons and dow n pay ment f ro m W ashi ng ton, the actu al lo ss to the d eal ershi p w as ro ug hly $7,5 00.00. W a s h in gt o n a rg u e s i n h e r b ri e f t h a tt h e t e s t im o n y re ga rd in g l o s s wa s co n c lu s o ry. She c ontends that , bec ause there w as no te sti mony on deal er mar k- ups, fair

mar ket
v alu es, sa les co mmiss ion s, and reba te s, there w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to prov e tha t $7,500. 00 w as a m ajor l oss
. How ev er , W ashi ng ton p ro v ide s n o aut hor ity , and w e find none, in suppo rtof her arg ument t hat s uch tes ti mony i s n eeded. Base d on thi s e v ide nce and re view ing the re cord i n a l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to
conv icti on, w e c oncl ude t hat a rati onal j ur y co uld hav e found thi s a mount t o be the l oss of a maj or po rt i o n o f v a l u e o r e n j o y me n t t o A g u i r re , w h o w a s s t a n d i n g i n t h e s h o e s o f Ed P a y n e M otors. See K ing , 174 S.W .3d a t 811 ; see als o T hom as v. State , N o. 13- 00- 157- CR , 200 1 W L 34389 007, at * 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 23, 2001, no pet.) ( h o ld in g t h a t t he v icti m lo st a maj or por ti on of the v alu e of her ca r w here the def e n d a n t d ro v e i t for sev en month s a nd retur ned i t i n a d amag ed c ondi ti on)

. The
ev ide nce of l oss w as, therefore, leg all y suffici ent, and w e ov er ru le W ashi ng ton' s fifth and si xth i ss ues.15

Mo re ov er , w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce w as factual ly su ff ic ien t. Absent any
c o n t ra ry e v i d e n c e in t h e re c o rd , we wil l n o tsu b s t it u t e o u r j u d gm e n tfo r t h a to f t h e ju ry,
w hic h made i ts ow n dec is ion at tr ial reg ardin g the credi bil ity of the w it ness es and w eig hin g of the evidence , and cann ot con clude th at th e v erdict w as clearly w rong or man ifestly unj ust

. See K

ing , 29 S.W .3d a t 563

. W e find no objecti v e basis in the record to hol d tha t the Durang o w as not per manentl y w it hhel d from A g uir re or thata maj or

por ti on of the v alu e
or enj oy ment of the Durang o w as not los t to Ag uir re
. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5. W ashi ng ton' s four

th i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

CO NC LUS ION W e affi r m. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 6th d ay

of Jul y , 200 9.