Court Opinion

ID: 9683264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:25:32.067741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.743205
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
PHILLIPS, Judge.
On original submission a panel of this Court reversed appellant’s conviction for robbery because the state failed to prove its allegation of ownership of the stolen property. The indictment alleged that appellant:
. . . while in the course of committing theft of three pair women’s slacks, hereinafter called “the property”, from Albert J. Turegano, with the intent to obtain and maintain control of the property, knowingly and intentionally cause[d] bodily injury to Albert J. Turegano, . . .
Turegano was a dock worker at Dillard’s Department Store in Austin, where the robbery took place. Relying on McGee v. State, 572 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the panel held that Turegano did not have a “greater right to possession” of the stolen property, because the greater right theory applies only in cases of joint ownership. *914See V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 1.07(a)(24). The full Court recently overruled McGee in Compton v. State, 607 S.W.2d 246 (1980). (Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing). See also Johnson v. State, 606 S.W.2d 894 (1980).
Turegano and Steve Parker, a security guard for Dillard’s, accosted appellant as she was about to leave the store with the slacks hidden in her purse. As an employee of Dillard’s, Turegano at that time had a greater right to possess the slacks than did appellant. The state’s evidence was sufficient to prove ownership in Turegano. We overrule appellant’s second ground of error.
Although the panel reversed this case for the reason expressed above, it also discussed and overruled appellant’s first ground of error. We need not discuss that ground of error on rehearing.
The state’s motion for rehearing is granted. The prior reversal is set aside, and the judgment is affirmed.
ONION, P. J., and CLINTON, J., dissent.