Anthony John Liberto v. State
06-16-00063-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Liberto occupied a foreclosed house owned by James Ellis; Louis Edwin Hash, Jr. purchased the house at auction on January 8, 2013, and posted a notice to vacate.
- Hash later moved in and discovered the stove, dishwasher, HVAC air-conditioning unit, and outdoor compressor were missing.
- Police recovered the dishwasher, compressor, and unit at a neighbor’s house; neighbor testified he bought the dishwasher from Liberto and found the AC unit hidden.
- Video and recorded statements show Liberto told Hash he had installed the AC (paid about $1,600) and that it "worked good;" Liberto introduced a 2007 invoice showing a $1,183.84 purchase by his company.
- At bench trial Liberto argued the items were his personal property; the court found (beyond a reasonable doubt) the AC unit and compressor were fixtures owned by Hash and valued at $1,500 or more.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership: Were the AC unit and compressor fixtures and owned by Hash? | State: Liberto said he installed the AC and it was hooked up; video and statements support fixture status, so title passed to purchaser Hash. | Liberto: Items were not affixed; some items sat inside and were plug-in; he purchased them and introduced invoice showing purchase. | Court: Sufficient evidence supports finding the AC unit and compressor were fixtures and belonged to Hash. |
| Value: Was the value of the stolen property $1,500+? | State: Owner Hash testified replacement cost for AC was $7,000; officer testified compressor retail value ranged ~$1,490–$3,600 — supports $1,500+ value. | Liberto: Presented invoice showing $1,183.84 purchase price in 2007; argued fair market value likely lower than $1,500. | Court: Considering owner and officer testimony and weighing credibility, sufficient evidence supported value of $1,500+ beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
- Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App.) (owner’s testimony presumed to estimate fair market value; replacement cost admissible)
- Keeton v. State, 803 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of fair market value)