Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Felters v. State
Citations: 147 S.W.3d 488; 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7310; 2004 WL 1799176Docket: 2-03-498-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 12, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court
Vickie Elaine Felters was convicted by a jury for theft of property valued between $50 and $500 and sentenced to 180 days in jail, with a $250 fine. The trial court's oral pronouncement of probation for 180 days conflicted with the written judgment, which stated a 24-month probation. Felters appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on a lesser included offense of theft under $50. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the oral pronouncement of sentence prevails but also confirming that the evidence supported Felters' guilt and that the jury charge was appropriate. Factual evidence indicated that Felters and her co-defendant, Valerie Brooks, visited J.C. Penney to shop and return items. Surveillance footage showed Felters handing Brooks merchandise, after which both left the store without paying. Items were later found in Brooks' shopping bags. In addressing the sufficiency of evidence, the Court emphasized that Felters' complicity was evident as she intentionally assisted in the theft, even if she did not physically take items herself. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings, noting that Felters and Brooks acted in concert, which supported the conviction. Evidence indicates that the Appellant was actively involved in the theft, participating in the selection of items, assisting the Co-defendant, and acting as a lookout. The jury viewed video evidence and witness testimonies, leading to a conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to uphold their verdict. The Appellant's request for a jury instruction on a lesser included offense of theft under fifty dollars was denied. While the State established the total value of stolen items as $251.94, they only provided specific value for one item, a toy frog valued between twelve and twenty-four dollars. The Appellant argued that she only assisted with items she selected, but the evidence showed she was aware of the increasing volume of the bags and witnessed the Co-defendant exit the dressing room with noticeably lighter bags. Therefore, it was determined that a rational jury could not conclude the Appellant was guilty only of a lesser offense. Regarding the sentencing, the judge verbally assigned a 180-day community supervision to the Appellant, but the written judgment incorrectly stated twenty-four months. The discrepancy prompted a modification of the judgment to reflect the oral sentence of 180 days. After overruling all of the Appellant's points, the trial court's judgment was affirmed as modified.