Bullock, Henry Richard Jr. A/K/A Imari Abybakari, 479 S.W.3d 422

Defendant was convicted by jury of theft of a leased 26-foot delivery truck valued at $20,000–$100,000; punishment enhanced to 30 years.
Victim Martinez (assistant manager) testified he leased trucks from Penske, received an email stating the truck’s value was $83,000, and described the defendant occupying the cab, revving pedals, then fleeing and being chased and subdued.
Defendant proceeded pro se with standby counsel, denied knowing the truck’s value and repeatedly testified he did not intend to steal the truck (claimed he sought items from the cab).
Trial court omitted a jury definition of “value” and denied defendant’s requested instruction on attempted theft as a lesser-included offense.
On appeal the majority affirmed: (1) owner testimony was legally sufficient to prove fair market value; (2) omission of a statutory definition of “value” did not cause egregious harm; (3) no evidence warranted a lesser-included attempted-theft instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of value	Martinez’s owner testimony (Penske email, $83,000) suffices to prove fair market value	Owner testimony lacked detail on age/condition/depreciation; lease value ≠ market value	Affirmed — owner testimony legally sufficient under Texas precedent
Failure to define “value” in jury charge	Omission harmless; jury could use common meaning and charge contained elements	Omission caused egregious harm by leaving jurors unsure whether “value” meant fair market value	Affirmed — no egregious harm shown; common understanding sufficed
Denial of attempted-theft lesser instruction	No evidence would permit jury to rationally find only attempted theft given facts	Defendant argues his testimony and inability to move truck could support attempt	Affirmed — record lacks sufficient evidence of attempt as valid rational alternative
Standard of review for lesser instruction	Court applies Rice/Hall standard: some evidence more than scintilla required	Defendant relies on Jones/Lofton to show any conflicting evidence can require instruction	Affirmed — majority finds evidence insufficient; dissent disagrees and would remand

Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (legal-sufficiency standard and inferences)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Smiles v. State, 298 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (owner testimony presumed to estimate fair market value)
Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (owner’s opinion of value sufficient absent controverting evidence)
Campbell v. State, 426 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (presumption that owner testimony estimates fair market value)
Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (egregious-harm standard for unobjected-to jury charge error)
Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (when a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction)
Lofton v. State, 45 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (testimony of complete denial insufficient to raise certain lesser-included issues)
Denton v. State, 911 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (issues about unauthorized use/operation of vehicle; factual comparison regarding attempt)
Barnes v. State, 513 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (theft may be complete without movement when defendant in driver’s seat)